Hellenism is identified with its ecumenical character and for that reason it can never be nationalistic for both of its manifestations, its culture and its Orthodox faith are concepts that transcend the boundaries of the national.

The Greek language helped spread Christianity; However, the ancient Greek (or by extension Byzantine) cultures have no business being perpetuated in a Christian context. Let the dead bury their dead - which is what Christ said.

I wonder if this lecture shows that Constantinople and Antioch are worried about America and how the Church is evolving in terms of perhaps seeking more autonomy. Could both thrones be worried about the same issue?A friend of mine who attended Holy Cross told me about professors and students joking about the "immigrant mentality".

I wonder if this lecture shows that Constantinople and Antioch are worried about America and how the Church is evolving in terms of perhaps seeking more autonomy. Could both thrones be worried about the same issue?

Yes. I'm sure that's what it's about- the autonomy of the American Church is threatening the Ancient Patriarchates.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I wonder if this lecture shows that Constantinople and Antioch are worried about America and how the Church is evolving in terms of perhaps seeking more autonomy. Could both thrones be worried about the same issue?

Yes. I'm sure that's what it's about- the autonomy of the American Church is threatening the Ancient Patriarchates.

Could you say more about that?

The Church in America constitutes less than 1% of global Orthodoxy. I don't see why it would be a threat to the Patriarchates.

Even if it managed to unify itself administratively (and maybe even receive the status of a Patriarchate -highly unlikely) it would still be a piffling 1% of the Orthodox world.

The software generated tags at the bottom have thown up old threads. One contains an interesting snippet from Fr Anastasios as to how Greek Americans were transferred from Athens to the EP.

"You know Tom, that's a funny story. The reason that America is under the EP is this: Meletios was Archbishop of Athens and was kicked out. He never resigned. He then came to the USA, where he strengthened his control over the Greeks here and founded the GOARCH. He then became EP. Now, he never had resigned being Archbishop of Athens so he issued a tomos declaring that the GOARCH was thereby transferred from his jurisdiction as Arch. of Athens to his jurisdiction as EP, and then he resigned being Arch. of Athens. He was later deposed from the EP and later became Patriarch of Alexandria, and also served as the head of the Church of Cyprus. A very controversial figure."

I wonder if this lecture shows that Constantinople and Antioch are worried about America and how the Church is evolving in terms of perhaps seeking more autonomy. Could both thrones be worried about the same issue?

Yes. I'm sure that's what it's about- the autonomy of the American Church is threatening Hellenism / Arabismthe Ancient Patriarchates.

The OCA is a threat to the bolded entities. The geopolitical purple demon has been awakened once again since America was founded on Hellenistic principles, such as democracy, which didn't exist in Constantinople nor in Moscow nor in Damascus ... ever.

I think there is a concern in both patriarchates of the growing number of priests in each jurisdiction who are not Arabs or Greeks. Many Greek Orthodox Churches are using more English and less Greek because many of their priests can't speak Greek. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, one can only have DL in Arabic if the priest is an immigrant. But most of our priests are either American-born Arabs (who don't speak the language) or priests who have come into the church from other religious backgrounds.

In time, the priests, who will be mostly Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, will and are already finding they have more in common than just the language of English. And with each passing year there will be more cooperation at the clergy level between the jurisdictions. Over time, as each jurisdiction will remain the same size or shrink, there will be an even a larger draw to pull together with other Orthodox communities, regardless of jurisdiction. It is only a matter of time. The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

And maybe Metropolitan Jonah scares the living daylights out of the patriarchates because he is an intelligent, pastoral, monastic who believes in Orthodox unity and is not a homosexual.

I think there is a concern in both patriarchates of the growing number of priests in each jurisdiction who are not Arabs or Greeks. Many Greek Orthodox Churches are using more English and less Greek because many of their priests can't speak Greek. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, one can only have DL in Arabic if the priest is an immigrant. But most of our priests are either American-born Arabs (who don't speak the language) or priests who have come into the church from other religious backgrounds.

In time, the priests, who will be mostly Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, will and are already finding they have more in common than just the language of English. And with each passing year there will be more cooperation at the clergy level between the jurisdictions. Over time, as each jurisdiction will remain the same size or shrink, there will be an even a larger draw to pull together with other Orthodox communities, regardless of jurisdiction. It is only a matter of time. The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

And maybe Metropolitan Jonah scares the living daylights out of the patriarchates because he is an intelligent, pastoral, monastic who believes in Orthodox unity and is not a homosexual.

What the **** does one's sexual orientation have to do with anything put forth in this discussion?

Who told you that? Besides, I thought we were not supposed to bring in people's personal details?

Please can we stop any further derailing of the thread.

The lecture from the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Church of Constantinople is of more than a little significance.

It is a watershed speech, a clarion call, even a call to arms - a clear statement of Constantinople's exclusive claims to authority in America as against all the other jurisdictions which exist there.

I am sure the speech did not just "happen." It was carefully prepared and the Archimandrite had a mission from Constantinople to bring this position statement to America. Would you agree with me that what we are hearing in this lecture is the voice of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

Who told you that? Besides, I thought we were not supposed to bring in people's personal details?

Please can we stop any further derailing of the thread.

Um....are you telling yourself to stop derailing your own thread?

I have not been derailing it. Read the sequence of messages. Do you think we should open another 'clean' thread where people may discuss simply the Archimandrite's speech? This thread is getting lost in a thicket of off topic posts. Maybe a Mod could bring it back on track by 'pruning' it?

Qzgeorge and Irishhermit...could you take your b--ch fights elsewhere..Im taking this thread seriously...I am starting to think that both Antioch and Constantinople are digging in their claws and that the next few months could be extremely important for the future of the Orthodox Church in the USA

On the other hand, however, four very concrete dangers lurk behind such a communal organization of the local Church:

a) That the priest might become alienated from his administrative duties, and from being the spiritual leader of the parish would become a clerk of the parish council,b) That the parishioners would find it difficult to comprehend the rules according to which the Church is governed and instead they would follow their own secular reasoning,c) That the structures of the parish would become influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, andd) That the parishes would degenerate into nothing more than membership clubs, invested with some ecclesiastical resemblance.

As you all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in its financial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire to detach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability to break free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever was considered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected, these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church, sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soon Orthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of other denominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgical tradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bare essentials, etc.

I was quite pleased to see him adress these issues, which I think are more immediate. If the promotion of Hellenism within the GOA means a reversal of these issues, and not merely a promotion of Greek-ness, then it's something I'd be very supportive of.

On the other hand, however, four very concrete dangers lurk behind such a communal organization of the local Church:

a) That the priest might become alienated from his administrative duties, and from being the spiritual leader of the parish would become a clerk of the parish council,b) That the parishioners would find it difficult to comprehend the rules according to which the Church is governed and instead they would follow their own secular reasoning,c) That the structures of the parish would become influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, andd) That the parishes would degenerate into nothing more than membership clubs, invested with some ecclesiastical resemblance.

As you all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in its financial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire to detach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability to break free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever was considered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected, these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church, sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soon Orthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of other denominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgical tradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bare essentials, etc.

I was quite pleased to see him adress these issues, which I think are more immediate. If the promotion of Hellenism within the GOA means a reversal of these issues, and not merely a promotion of Greek-ness, then it's something I'd be very supportive of.

Actually, I think point a,b,c, & d have already happened to various degrees, and are not merely future dangers. Parish Councils often do behave like they "own" the Priest, who is merely a functionary, and the laity do make judgements based on their own secular reasoning, with little or no knowledge of the guiding Canons of the Church.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Actually, I think point a,b,c, & d have already happened to various degrees, and are not merely future dangers. Parish Councils often do behave like they "own" the Priest, who is merely a functionary, and the laity do make judgements based on their own secular reasoning, with little or no knowledge of the guiding Canons of the Church.

Very much so, and I think issues such as these are much more important than the issue of multiple jurisdictions. While lamentable and uncanonical, the existence of multiple ethnic jurisdictions is not a direct impediment to the salvation of their faithful. Allowing the churches to be run by secular-minded laity, and the undermining, if not outright disdain for, orthopraxis and traditional forms of worship (it seems almost everything can be dismissed as insignificant as long as the "Big T vs. small t traditions" cliché is invoked) does create such an impediment imho.

Very much so, and I think issues such as these are much more important than the issue of multiple jurisdictions. While lamentable and uncanonical, the existence of multiple ethnic jurisdictions is not a direct impediment to the salvation of their faithful. Allowing the churches to be run by secular-minded laity, and the undermining, if not outright disdain for, orthopraxis and traditional forms of worship (it seems almost everything can be dismissed as insignificant as long as the "Big T vs. small t traditions" cliché is invoked) does create such an impediment imho.

I agree. I think one of the big issues is that as more converts join the Churches, they will bring their cultures into the Church- which is great, however, culture needs to be sanctified by the Church, and what is good retained, and what is not so good, and incompatible with Orthodox Tradition be rejected. But this isn't what is happening. What is happening is the notion that "all culture" in the "New Lands" of the Church must be absorbed and accepted as is- including such notions as "rugged individualism", "independence" etc. But there is no such thing as complete independence in Orthodox Christianity- the Body of Christ cannot be divided. But what is happening in places where there are multiple jurisdictions is so close to denominationalism that it might as well be. But rather than using the Orthodox Church's Concilliar method of resolving such issues, the Churches in the New Lands seek to impose themselves- "We are the American Church- join us!", "No, we are the American Church, join us!" They are using Protestant denominationalism to try and solve an issue which cannot possibly be solved that way. And not only that, it's ecclesiastical heresy.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Very disturbing development. So the Patriarch of Constantinople has sent the secretary of His Synod to America to challenge both Metropolitan Jonah and Metropolitan Phillip. And, in a decidedly ugly way. I will quote from the article, but first I want to make a comment on the following claim: "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans.

Here is how the Archimandrite Lambriniadis mocks Metropolitan Phillip: "Metropolitan Phillip begins his argument with an entirely anti-theological distinction of the holy canons into three categories 1) dogmatic, 2) contextual and, 3) “dead”. I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?" So, this is how an archimandrite of the Constantinople Patriarchy talks about the head of an archdiocese that has more members than the Patriarch has in the three dioceses that are enumerated in the canon!

Now let's see what the learned Doctor has to say about Metropolitan Jonah: "It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church."

As egregious as this is, he escalates the rhetoric: "Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person."

So, Metropolitan Phillip is a fool and Metropolitan Jonah is a heretic. Furthermore, if one does not accept the universal primacy of Constantinople Patriarch, one is not truly Orthodox. I have not quoted other passages that also manage to insult converts and early emigrants. All I can say is that this Very Reverend Doctor Archimandrite from the Phanar should have stayed in Istanbul--what a one-man wrecking crew!

I think there is a concern in both patriarchates of the growing number of priests in each jurisdiction who are not Arabs or Greeks. Many Greek Orthodox Churches are using more English and less Greek because many of their priests can't speak Greek. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, one can only have DL in Arabic if the priest is an immigrant. But most of our priests are either American-born Arabs (who don't speak the language) or priests who have come into the church from other religious backgrounds.

In time, the priests, who will be mostly Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, will and are already finding they have more in common than just the language of English. And with each passing year there will be more cooperation at the clergy level between the jurisdictions. Over time, as each jurisdiction will remain the same size or shrink, there will be an even a larger draw to pull together with other Orthodox communities, regardless of jurisdiction. It is only a matter of time. The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

And maybe Metropolitan Jonah scares the living daylights out of the patriarchates because he is an intelligent, pastoral, monastic who believes in Orthodox unity and is not a homosexual.

What the **** does one's sexual orientation have to do with anything put forth in this discussion?

The only thing holding back the OCA was their compromised bishops and corrupt administration. Now, with the election of Metropolitan Jonah, the OCA has a spiritual leader who can take the OCA in the direction it always needed to go. And he is an American with no allegiance to Istanbul, Lebanon, Syria, Russia, etc. His only allegiance is to his American flock. The very thought of him with his clear vision and sense of purpose is scaring the daylights out of Istanbul and Antioch.Read between the lines, you can see the fear in every word written by this Greek/Antiochian priest.

Many Greek Orthodox Churches are using more English and less Greek because many of their priests can't speak Greek.

The concern is not whether a parish uses more English, but whether a priest who is assigned to a Greek-speaking parish uses Greek when he needs to, or not. If a non-Greek speaking priest goes to a non-Greek speaking parish, and doesn't speak Greek, there is neither complaint nor concern on local, diocesan, national, or international levels.

In time, the priests, who will be mostly Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, will and are already finding they have more in common than just the language of English. And with each passing year there will be more cooperation at the clergy level between the jurisdictions. Over time, as each jurisdiction will remain the same size or shrink, there will be an even a larger draw to pull together with other Orthodox communities, regardless of jurisdiction. It is only a matter of time.

The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

No, your response is screaming with your presuppositions and bias. He specifically addressed the Hellenism question in the paper - they're not trying to spread Hellenism, just maintain it where there are Greek people who want it.

And maybe Metropolitan Jonah scares the living daylights out of the patriarchates because he is an intelligent, pastoral, monastic who believes in Orthodox unity

There are lots of them around; heck, I've met quite a few in Churches within the grouping of the EP. I don't think he "scares the living daylights" out of anyone, and the comments in the article seem to only be pointing out inexperience, and ignorance that is perceived in the Metropolitan's past statements and writings.

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Very disturbing development. So the Patriarch of Constantinople has sent the secretary of His Synod to America to challenge both Metropolitan Jonah and Metropolitan Phillip.

Hardly. Fr. Elpidoforos is an academic invited by the school to speak, not the other way around. This isn't his first visit (I was at the school, when he broke the news about Cyprus to a few of us sitting in the barber shop; he had just gotten the phone call), nor will it be his last - he has relationships with people there, relationships that were revisited when my class visited Constantinople.

It's a paper, rebutting comments that both Metropolitans have made recently. How is that ugly? If it is ugly, then shouldn't the comments that were initially made by the other Metropolitans be considered equally "ugly?"

I will quote from the article, but first I want to make a comment on the following claim: "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans.

Here is how the Archimandrite Lambriniadis mocks Metropolitan Phillip: "Metropolitan Phillip begins his argument with an entirely anti-theological distinction of the holy canons into three categories 1) dogmatic, 2) contextual and, 3) “dead”. I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?" So, this is how an archimandrite of the Constantinople Patriarchy talks about the head of an archdiocese that has more members than the Patriarch has in the three dioceses that are enumerated in the canon!

Numbers don't matter; if he feels that the Metropolitan's point on canons was disrespectful, he'll respond, although he did leave His Eminence +PHILIP with the dignity of his title in all cases (unlike members on this forum who write MP so flippantly). I would actually disagree with the Metropolitan's assessment of canons; while my experience in the studies of the canonical tradition are greatly diminished in the shadow of someone who studied at Halki, I think his statement, as quoted, is irresponsible and probably flies in the face of how his own Synod in Antioch interprets the canons.

I have not quoted other passages that also manage to insult converts and early emigrants.

You know, I read much of those passages to two converts who were in my office (one a priest, the other a monk, both of whom are easily twice my age) and they agreed with most of the characterizations and statements, although had concerns about approach.

All I can say is that this Very Reverend Doctor Archimandrite from the Phanar should have stayed in Istanbul--what a one-man wrecking crew!

And you should have stayed away from the keyboard. You're attempting to rebut an address at a Theological school with complaints and whining; if you bring the facts to back up your statements, then fine by me, but don't presume to take the "moral/theological" high road if you can't prove you're there and aren't sure where it is on the map.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 09:37:00 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I think there is a concern in both patriarchates of the growing number of priests in each jurisdiction who are not Arabs or Greeks. Many Greek Orthodox Churches are using more English and less Greek because many of their priests can't speak Greek. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, one can only have DL in Arabic if the priest is an immigrant. But most of our priests are either American-born Arabs (who don't speak the language) or priests who have come into the church from other religious backgrounds.

In time, the priests, who will be mostly Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, will and are already finding they have more in common than just the language of English. And with each passing year there will be more cooperation at the clergy level between the jurisdictions. Over time, as each jurisdiction will remain the same size or shrink, there will be an even a larger draw to pull together with other Orthodox communities, regardless of jurisdiction. It is only a matter of time. The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

And maybe Metropolitan Jonah scares the living daylights out of the patriarchates because he is an intelligent, pastoral, monastic who believes in Orthodox unity and is not a homosexual.

What the **** does one's sexual orientation have to do with anything put forth in this discussion?

The only thing holding back the OCA was their compromised bishops and corrupt administration. Now, with the election of Metropolitan Jonah, the OCA has a spiritual leader who can take the OCA in the direction it always needed to go. And he is an American with no allegiance to Istanbul, Lebanon, Syria, Russia, etc. His only allegiance is to his American flock. The very thought of him with his clear vision and sense of purpose is scaring the daylights out of Istanbul and Antioch.Read between the lines, you can see the fear in every word written by this Greek/Antiochian priest.

You know what I find arrogant? That one would presume to characterize and diagnose the fears of a man (or group of people) who goes to work not knowing if somebody is going to lob a grenade on his office and end his life. If there are concerns about Metropolitan +JONAH, I'm positive that they are not because of his energy, integrity, background, or vision.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

The patriarchates can try and keep Hellenism, or any other cultural perspective alive but they are fighting a losing battle. This paper written by this particular priest is just screaming of their fears for the future.

No, your response is screaming with your presuppositions and bias. He specifically addressed the Hellenism question in the paper - they're not trying to spread Hellenism, just maintain it where there are Greek people who want it.

I have learned that when Hellenism is used today by those of the EP throne it is their way of saying Roman and when I say Roman I mean it as in the Empire and not in what the guys in Italy like to call themselves. The EP looks at itself as the last shining light of the Roman Empire and those citizens who are Greek speaking to be the last heirs of the Empire.

I appreciated reading the article and knowing who the audience is, young whining seminarians at Holy Cross, thought it to be an excellent presentation. Many of his points are right on, and I am glad he took Met. Philip to task on the presentation he made at St. Vladimir's, particularity the comment about "dead" canons.

I wonder if this lecture shows that Constantinople and Antioch are worried about America and how the Church is evolving in terms of perhaps seeking more autonomy. Could both thrones be worried about the same issue?

A friend of mine who attended Holy Cross told me about professors and students joking about the "immigrant mentality".

One thing I have heard raised is the concern that while we strive to better serve the people of America, which at least the EP wants to happen, we shouldn't neglect the people that are not culturally American (i.e. immigrants of all cloths). The perception I've heard frequently is that we send priests who speak no Greek to parishes that want/need Greek, and priests who do speak Greek to parishes that don't want it or need it.

Personally, I'm a multiculturalist: celebrate all the independence days you want to; have 10 different types of cultural foods at the Church's festival (which should coincide with it's feastday, as a feastday celebration); but speak English in the parish, unless you're the "only game in town," and then sprinkle in as many languages as you need to. Teaching languages at the Church? Great idea: Greek, Hebrew, Russian, German, and Latin - you will be able to read 99% of all theological works ever created with that set.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

No, your response is screaming with your presuppositions and bias. He specifically addressed the Hellenism question in the paper - they're not trying to spread Hellenism, just maintain it where there are Greek people who want it.

I have learned that when Hellenism is used today by those of the EP throne it is their way of saying Roman and when I say Roman I mean it as in the Empire and not in what the guys in Italy like to call themselves. The EP looks at itself as the last shining light of the Roman Empire and those citizens who are Greek speaking to be the last heirs of the Empire.

There is definitely an element of that. An Orthodox people, Orthodox culture, etc. A time when Christianity is the dominant religion, and it shows.

Many of his points are right on, and I am glad he took Met. Philip to task on the presentation he made at St. Vladimir's, particularity the comment about "dead" canons.

Uh-huh. When I had first heard of it, I said "irresponsible." The response shows that someone was paying attention.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Holy Cross Seminary has been in an uproar for the last few days. Below is a link to a speech given there on Monday:

A friend there says it was yesterday, not Monday.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 09:38:00 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

One thing always overlooked when Canon 28 is cited is that it was never accepted by the Church. It was firmly opposed by the Holy Church of Rome which held the Primacy and so it was not accepted by the fullness of Orthodoxy. Without a conciliar acceptance, if one of the five Patriarchates rejects it, then it cannot be implemented.

There was an hiatus from Chalcedon in 450 AD to the schism in 1054 AD, a total of 600 years, when Canon 28 was quite meaningless.

After the schism and the loss of the Patriarchate of Rome, Constantinople may like to argue that Canon 28 come into force at that time, 600 years later, but in point of fact, no Orthodox Patriarchate, in its actions, agrees with Constantinople's interpretation of Canon 28.

One thing always overlooked when Canon 28 is cited is that it was never accepted by the Church. It was firmly opposed by the Holy Church of Rome which held the Primacy and so it was not accepted by the fullness of Orthodoxy.

And? There are canons from local synods that have Ecumenical force or are universally accepted.

There was an hiatus from Chalcedon in 450 AD to the schism in 1054 AD, a total of 600 years, when Canon 28 was quite meaningless.

After the schism and the loss of the Patriarchate of Rome, Constantinople may like to argue that Canon 28 come into force at that time, 600 years later, but in point of fact, no Orthodox Patriarchate, in its actions, agrees with Constantinople's interpretation of Canon 28.

Was it meaningless? None of them? What about the "autocephalous" non-Patriarchates (Cyprus, Athens, etc)?

« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 10:28:44 PM by cleveland »

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Very disturbing development. So the Patriarch of Constantinople has sent the secretary of His Synod to America to challenge both Metropolitan Jonah and Metropolitan Phillip.

Hardly. Fr. Elpidoforos is an academic invited by the school to speak, not the other way around. This isn't his first visit (I was at the school, when he broke the news about Cyprus to a few of us sitting in the barber shop; he had just gotten the phone call), nor will it be his last - he has relationships with people there, relationships that were revisited when my class visited Constantinople.

Well, I am relieved that he did this all on his own. By the way, how about some prime real estate....

It's a paper, rebutting comments that both Metropolitans have made recently. How is that ugly? If it is ugly, then shouldn't the comments that were initially made by the other Metropolitans be considered equally "ugly?"

Ugly in the sense of being condescending, accusing opponents of heresy, calling Metropolitan Phillip's considered opinion that of "circumstantial judgment of some bishop." This is not tit-for-tat, this is disrespect.

I will quote from the article, but first I want to make a comment on the following claim: "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans.

Quote

Bring the proof, or don't bother responding.

I was hoping you would not challenge me. But, here it goes, warts and all...Are you familiar with the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Church in the 19th century? It was called the Bulgarian Exarchate and covered all of Modern day Bulgaria, almost all of modern day northern Greece, and the current Republic of Macedonia. A German map showing the boundaries may be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bulgarian-Exarchate-1870-1913.jpg. The reasons were partly the Bulgarian national renaissance and partly the insistence by the Patriarchate to suppress the national awaking/promote Hellenism or Greekness. You may remember the 1903 Ilinden Rebellion in the Macedonia and Adrinople regions against the Ottoman Turks. You may not know that it failed and was brutally suppressed by the Turks, aided and abetted by some of the Patriarchate's clergy who guided the Turkish troops to the Bulgarian villages. You know, people remember this knife in the back from a fellow Orthodox (and clergy to boot) better than any atrocity that comes from one's enemy. Do you need more evidence?

All I can say is that this Very Reverend Doctor Archimandrite from the Phanar should have stayed in Istanbul--what a one-man wrecking crew!

Quote

And you should have stayed away from the keyboard. You're attempting to rebut an address at a Theological school with complaints and whining; if you bring the facts to back up your statements, then fine by me, but don't presume to take the "moral/theological" high road if you can't prove you're there and aren't sure where it is on the map.

I believe that Fr Francis Dvornik showed in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy that Rome did in fact accept Chalcedon 28 after protesting it. It was only later that they reverted to the "we never accepted this" position. I don't have that book sitting here though. Maybe someone can cite the page if they have it, or show me if I am mistaken.

I agree. I think one of the big issues is that as more converts join the Churches, they will bring their cultures into the Church- which is great, however, culture needs to be sanctified by the Church, and what is good retained, and what is not so good, and incompatible with Orthodox Tradition be rejected. But this isn't what is happening. What is happening is the notion that "all culture" in the "New Lands" of the Church must be absorbed and accepted as is- including such notions as "rugged individualism", "independence" etc. But there is no such thing as complete independence in Orthodox Christianity- the Body of Christ cannot be divided. But what is happening in places where there are multiple jurisdictions is so close to denominationalism that it might as well be. But rather than using the Orthodox Church's Concilliar method of resolving such issues, the Churches in the New Lands seek to impose themselves- "We are the American Church- join us!", "No, we are the American Church, join us!" They are using Protestant denominationalism to try and solve an issue which cannot possibly be solved that way. And not only that, it's ecclesiastical heresy.

I can't remember the exact story, but it's either Dostoevsky or Tolstoy that writes about a holy water or something, contained in a beautiful gilded container. The people, wanting to access the holy water directly, and seeing the container as something nonessential, break the container. The liquid then falls to the ground, soaks into the earth and is forever lost.

Does this ring a bell? I've been meaning to look it up.

It seems to me that many people are trying to do just this. Thinking that only the essence of Orthodoxy (whatever is meant by this) is of importance, they are prepared to strip it of all the things that has preserved it in order to accommodate their own fallible opinions, and in their zeal risk losing the whole thing.

Without a conciliar acceptance, if one of the five Patriarchates rejects it, then it cannot be implemented.

Proof?

Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, Ireland, etc., etc. - all barbarian lands which were evangelised by Rome. To my knowledge Constantinople did not make the slightest attempt to use Canon 28 to claim authority over these lands.

I believe that Fr Francis Dvornik showed in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy that Rome did in fact accept Chalcedon 28 after protesting it. It was only later that they reverted to the "we never accepted this" position. I don't have that book sitting here though. Maybe someone can cite the page if they have it, or show me if I am mistaken.

Father,

Why would the Church of Rome accept that all its missionary labours (and they were immense) in the barbarian lands such as Germany etc. was simply work done for Constantinople's benefit? Were the Churches created by Rome in barbarian lands handed over to Constantinople?

Hardly. Fr. Elpidoforos is an academic invited by the school to speak, not the other way around. This isn't his first visit (I was at the school, when he broke the news about Cyprus to a few of us sitting in the barber shop; he had just gotten the phone call), nor will it be his last - he has relationships with people there, relationships that were revisited when my class visited Constantinople.

Well, I am relieved that he did this all on his own. By the way, how about some prime real estate....

Are you a man "who sees through the facade and doesn't buy it," or "who is confronted with the truth and doesn't buy it." Believe it or not, the EP doesn't micromanage his priests, and does allow them to go and speak as they wish. He didn't "send him to confront the Metropolitans," and since you've decided to make the claim, you're going to have to prove it or have your statements rendered irrelevant. Without any semblance of logic or substantiation, your cries of "lapdog" to Fr. Elpidoforos will look as pathetic to everyone else as they do to me.

It's a paper, rebutting comments that both Metropolitans have made recently. How is that ugly? If it is ugly, then shouldn't the comments that were initially made by the other Metropolitans be considered equally "ugly?"

Ugly in the sense of being condescending, accusing opponents of heresy, calling Metropolitan Phillip's considered opinion that of "circumstantial judgment of some bishop." This is not tit-for-tat, this is disrespect.

Actually, (in a common rhetorical device) he didn't actually call the Metropolitan's characterization a "circumstancial judgment of some bishop," but rather made that statement as a generality, that the Metropolitan wanted to stipulate that the Church will allow its canons to be subject to "the circumstancial judgment of some bishop." Nice try. How about both Metropolitans taking opportunities to pot-shot the Ecumenical Patriarchate to favorable audiences without providing balanced views or counterpoints?

I will quote from the article, but first I want to make a comment on the following claim: "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans.

I was hoping you would not challenge me. But, here it goes, warts and all...Are you familiar with the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Church in the 19th century? It was called the Bulgarian Exarchate and covered all of Modern day Bulgaria, almost all of modern day northern Greece, and the current Republic of Macedonia. A German map showing the boundaries may be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bulgarian-Exarchate-1870-1913.jpg. The reasons were partly the Bulgarian national renaissance and partly the insistence by the Patriarchate to suppress the national awaking/promote Hellenism or Greekness. You may remember the 1903 Ilinden Rebellion in the Macedonia and Adrinople regions against the Ottoman Turks. You may not know that it failed and was brutally suppressed by the Turks, aided and abetted by some of the Patriarchate's clergy who guided the Turkish troops to the Bulgarian villages. You know, people remember this knife in the back from a fellow Orthodox (and clergy to boot) better than any atrocity that comes from one's enemy. Do you need more evidence?

Actually, I'd like some substantiation for the above (not as a skeptic, actually - just to satisfy my interest in history).

And you should have stayed away from the keyboard. You're attempting to rebut an address at a Theological school with complaints and whining; if you bring the facts to back up your statements, then fine by me, but don't presume to take the "moral/theological" high road if you can't prove you're there and aren't sure where it is on the map.

As OzGeorge says, thank you for your opinion.

I'd thank you for yours, but it's been nothing more than a waste of time and energy.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Without a conciliar acceptance, if one of the five Patriarchates rejects it, then it cannot be implemented.

Proof?

Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, Ireland, etc., etc. - all barbarian lands which were evangelised by Rome. To my knowledge Constantinople did not make the slightest attempt to use Canon 28 to claim authority over these lands.

Context, dear Father. (1) Each of those lands had been at least partially evangelized by Old Rome before Chalcedon; (2) even then, they were in the Western sphere of influence, which ceased in Orthodox eyes at the schism and was killed at the 4th Crusade; (3) when Old Rome was no longer in the Church, the expansion of the evangelization and area of responsibility of Constantinople would be natural, as it held the first-ranking place after Old Rome, and was the closest church geographically to the territories once considered Old Rome's.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I believe that Fr Francis Dvornik showed in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy that Rome did in fact accept Chalcedon 28 after protesting it. It was only later that they reverted to the "we never accepted this" position. I don't have that book sitting here though. Maybe someone can cite the page if they have it, or show me if I am mistaken.

Father,

Why would the Church of Rome accept that all its missionary labours (and they were immense) in the barbarian lands such as Germany etc. was simply work done for Constantinople's benefit? Were the Churches created by Rome in barbarian lands handed over to Constantinople?

I have not read the whole article; just skimmed it and decided to post it. If it's already been mentioned in this thread I apologize. I also do not necessarily agree with everything in the article, but simply wish to provide a different perspective for those interested.

Very much so, and I think issues such as these are much more important than the issue of multiple jurisdictions. While lamentable and uncanonical, the existence of multiple ethnic jurisdictions is not a direct impediment to the salvation of their faithful. Allowing the churches to be run by secular-minded laity, and the undermining, if not outright disdain for, orthopraxis and traditional forms of worship (it seems almost everything can be dismissed as insignificant as long as the "Big T vs. small t traditions" cliché is invoked) does create such an impediment imho.

I agree. I think one of the big issues is that as more converts join the Churches, they will bring their cultures into the Church- which is great, however, culture needs to be sanctified by the Church, and what is good retained, and what is not so good, and incompatible with Orthodox Tradition be rejected. But this isn't what is happening. What is happening is the notion that "all culture" in the "New Lands" of the Church must be absorbed and accepted as is- including such notions as "rugged individualism", "independence" etc. But there is no such thing as complete independence in Orthodox Christianity- the Body of Christ cannot be divided. But what is happening in places where there are multiple jurisdictions is so close to denominationalism that it might as well be. But rather than using the Orthodox Church's Concilliar method of resolving such issues, the Churches in the New Lands seek to impose themselves- "We are the American Church- join us!", "No, we are the American Church, join us!" They are using Protestant denominationalism to try and solve an issue which cannot possibly be solved that way. And not only that, it's ecclesiastical heresy.

We can thank Met. Arbish. EP Pope Meletious ? III IV II for that.

Can anyone name or point out a Greek bishop that was anywhere near America before Bp. Meletios the many numbered?

Who consecrated the first GO parish in New Orleans? The Cathedral in New York? Does anyone know?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Can anyone name or point out a Greek bishop that was anywhere near America before Bp. Meletios the many numbered?

Who consecrated the first GO parish in New Orleans? The Cathedral in New York? Does anyone know?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Can anyone name or point out a Greek bishop that was anywhere near America before Bp. Meletios the many numbered?

Who consecrated the first GO parish in New Orleans? The Cathedral in New York? Does anyone know?

1. Bishop Silas of Blessed Memory (founder of the then Diocese of New Jersey) in 1960 at the reconstructed original location a decade after the original building was demolished. 96 years passed between founding and consecration.

Quote

Due to the necessity for a larger church, the original building was demolished, with a new edifice constructed in its place in 1950. In 1960, the 15th Biennial Clergy-Laity Congress, supreme legislative body for the administration of the entire Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, authorized the consecration of the Holy Trinity Church as a Cathedral. On Sunday, October 9th, 1960, His Grace Bishop Silas of Amphipolis was ordained at Holy Trinity by His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, Primate of North and South America, His Eminence Archbishop Athenagoras, Primate of Europe, and Metropolitan Polyefktos, head of the Diocese of South America. On that same day, Holy Trinity was consecrated as a Cathedral and served, until 1965, as the See of the Diocese for the Eighth Archdiocesan District. In 1961, Holy Trinity was further honored to welcome His Beatitude Patriarch Benedictos I of Jerusalem during his visit to America.

Another milestone was reached on February 3rd and 4th, 2001, with the Consecration of the new Cathedral edifice.His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America, along with His Grace Bishop Alexios of Atlanta and His Grace Bishop John of Amorion, presided over the weekend's events assisted, among other clergy, by the present Dean of the Cathedral Rev. Fr. Anthony Stratis, and former Deans Rev. Fr. William G. Gaines, Rev. Fr. Demetrios S. Katerlis, Rev. Fr. Nicholas Pastrikos, and Rev. Fr. Nicholas W. Jonas. Events included a luncheon at the Nicholas Benachi House, a Trisagion at the Greek Orthodox Mausoleum at St. Louis Cemetery #3 (for the souls of the departed clergy of New Orleans, including Metropolitan Silas, and of the founder Nicholas Benachi), a dialogue with the youth of Holy Trinity, the Consecration services with the entombing into the Holy Altar of the Holy Relics of St. George the Triumphant, St. Demetrios the Myyrhflowing, and the Holy Fathers Martyred in Raitho (also including the Relics from the Consecration of the original church and names of the living and departed that were offered by the faithful), receptions, the Celebration Banquet at the Hellenic Center, and a concluding dinner at the New Orleans Country Club. Chairpersons for the Consecration were Charles and Helen Malachias, and the Honorary Chairpersons were Capt. Lucas and Kay Ktistakis. The Consecration is an event which occurs once in the lifetime of a church edifice and is analogous to a service of Baptism and Chrismation.

Can anyone name or point out a Greek bishop that was anywhere near America before Bp. Meletios the many numbered?

Who consecrated the first GO parish in New Orleans? The Cathedral in New York? Does anyone know?

1. Bishop Silas of Blessed Memory (founder of the then Diocese of New Jersey) in 1960 at the reconstructed original location a decade after the original building was demolished. 96 years passed between founding and consecration.

Quote

Due to the necessity for a larger church, the original building was demolished, with a new edifice constructed in its place in 1950. In 1960, the 15th Biennial Clergy-Laity Congress, supreme legislative body for the administration of the entire Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, authorized the consecration of the Holy Trinity Church as a Cathedral. On Sunday, October 9th, 1960, His Grace Bishop Silas of Amphipolis was ordained at Holy Trinity by His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, Primate of North and South America, His Eminence Archbishop Athenagoras, Primate of Europe, and Metropolitan Polyefktos, head of the Diocese of South America. On that same day, Holy Trinity was consecrated as a Cathedral and served, until 1965, as the See of the Diocese for the Eighth Archdiocesan District. In 1961, Holy Trinity was further honored to welcome His Beatitude Patriarch Benedictos I of Jerusalem during his visit to America.

Another milestone was reached on February 3rd and 4th, 2001, with the Consecration of the new Cathedral edifice.His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America, along with His Grace Bishop Alexios of Atlanta and His Grace Bishop John of Amorion, presided over the weekend's events assisted, among other clergy, by the present Dean of the Cathedral Rev. Fr. Anthony Stratis, and former Deans Rev. Fr. William G. Gaines, Rev. Fr. Demetrios S. Katerlis, Rev. Fr. Nicholas Pastrikos, and Rev. Fr. Nicholas W. Jonas. Events included a luncheon at the Nicholas Benachi House, a Trisagion at the Greek Orthodox Mausoleum at St. Louis Cemetery #3 (for the souls of the departed clergy of New Orleans, including Metropolitan Silas, and of the founder Nicholas Benachi), a dialogue with the youth of Holy Trinity, the Consecration services with the entombing into the Holy Altar of the Holy Relics of St. George the Triumphant, St. Demetrios the Myyrhflowing, and the Holy Fathers Martyred in Raitho (also including the Relics from the Consecration of the original church and names of the living and departed that were offered by the faithful), receptions, the Celebration Banquet at the Hellenic Center, and a concluding dinner at the New Orleans Country Club. Chairpersons for the Consecration were Charles and Helen Malachias, and the Honorary Chairpersons were Capt. Lucas and Kay Ktistakis. The Consecration is an event which occurs once in the lifetime of a church edifice and is analogous to a service of Baptism and Chrismation.

So, bottom line, the first Greek bishop to set foot in America, North America or the Americas was Arb. Meletios?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Metropolitan of Athens Meletios Metaxakis arrived in America on October 20, 1918, an soon established the Synodical Council setting the pattern for centralized Church administration.

In effect, this was the first step towards the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, which was incorporated in 1921, and officially recognized by the State of New York in 1922.

When Meletios was elected Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV in January,1922, one of his first official decrees on March 1st of that year was to restore the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This was formalized on May 11, 1922 when Patriarch Meletios declared the Church of America as an Archdiocese appointing the Rt. Rev. Alexander Titular Bishop of Rodostolon , as his Patriarchal Exarch here.

Regrettably, from 1922 to 1930 turbulent political events in Greece divided the Greeks in America, and the division also manifested itself here ecclesiastically. Fortunately, the necessity for religious unison and concord was quickly realized by the Greeks in this country, and this need was also understood by Ecumenical Patriarch Photios ll. Following a study of the situation of the Archdiocese, the Ecumenical Patriarch appointed Metropolitan Athenagoras of Corfu as Archbishop of North and South America on August 30, 1930. Archbishop Athenagoras arrived in New York on February 24, 1931 and began a long tenure which did not end until he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch on November 1,1948.

Archbishop Athenagoras used all of his powers of peacemaking and persuasion to bring harmony to the disunited communities. He centralized the Archdiocese, expanded the work of Clergy-Laity Congresses, established many new communities, founded St. Basil Academy and Teacher Training School in Garrison,NY, founded Holy Cross School of Theology in Pomfret, Connecticut, and in November 1931 during the Fourth Archdiocesan Clergy-Laity Congress established the Ladies Philoptochos Society, the official philanthropic organization of the Greek Orthodox Church in America.

Melotios was kicked out of Greece (having been kicked out of Jerusalem before) in 1920, having come briefly in 1918 to America, he returned.

By that time the Russian Church:

Had set up the sort of parishes like the ones in New Orleans and New York by the Greeks (i.e. unconsecrated) in North America for over a century and in the Continental United States couple of years shy of a century. In fact, the Russian parishes were more canonical in that those in Alaska had priests sent by the Holy Synod and had episcopal supervision, i.e. had a valid antimens.

Had ordained an auxiliary bishop for Alaska for nearly a century and a quarter.

Had ordained an bishop who diocese included Alaska over three quarters of a century.

Had a cathedral consecrated by its bishop in Alaska nearly three quarters of a century earlier.

Had ordained an auxiliary bishop with a see in Alaska over half a century earlier.

Had ordained a bishop with a see in the continental United States, the auxiliary bishop consecrating a parish in New York nearly a half century earlier.

Nearly three decades had been receiving parishes from the Vatican, both Eastern and Western rite.

Over two decades earlier the bishop of San Francisco organized the Orthodox in another country, Canada.

Nearly two decades earlier had expanded the diocese to extend over all of North America explicitely, and elevated it to an archdiocese.

Over a decade earlier had ordained its own bishop, the first ordination in North America, for the Arab Orthodox, i.e. started its own vicarates, which were 4 with at least 4 bishops by the time Arb. Meletius came, and had diocesan bishops.

Over a decade earlier, the Archdiocese had its first Archdiocesan Synod Assembly.

Over a decade earlier it had elevated the New York parish into the Archdiocese Metropolitan Church.

Over a decade earlier had switched the commemoration in the DL from the Czar to the President of the United States, and authorized English translation of the services (Hapgood).

In short, when Arb. Meletios came to America, he chose to ignore an Archdiocese which had a long history and was fully functioning as the largest diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church, including several of its bishops becoming members of the Russian Governing Holy Synod, including the senior hierarch, the Metropolitan of Moscow, and with St. Tikhon, even Patriarch of Moscow. And yet it was incorporating the other immigrant communities, even the Western, and establishing itself as a permanent fixture in America, i.e. NOT in diaspora.

If the author of the article in question worried about the Protestantization of Orthodoxy, there is the cure.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:51:09 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your history is a gloss which ignores too much - too many inconvenient facts.

Such as....?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your history is a gloss which ignores too much - too many inconvenient facts.

Such as....?

In your jihad against the Ecumenical Patriarch (any Patriarch of Constantinople apparently), you ignore the bits of relevant history, such as:1) After 1917 the Russian Metropolia was effectively orphaned by its mother Moscow. 2) It was not in communion with any Orthodox church that I know of until 1970. Its canonical status was challenged to say the least. I was told outright in the 1950s that the "Russians" (meaning Metropolia) were "separated from us" and I was not allowed to go to their churches.3) This cutoff from Moscow and subsequent canonical limbo could have been avoided by rapproachment with the ROCA bishops sent, but that did not happen.4) If any precedence of the Russians existed in NA (and I think it did) THIS was the time to make the Metropolia an autocephalous church, instead of abandoning it as Moscow did.5) All post 1917 activity happened at exactly the same time Greek immigration to the USA exploded (post WWI- Balkan Wars period + Greek/Turhish population exchange result) - several hundred thousand Greek Orthodox came through Ellis Island in a 5 year period (records online) and they wanted churches.

So, now I'm supposed to condemn my patriarch for providing for his flock with bishops and priests (and the Serbs, Romanians , and Antiochians theirs)?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:48:51 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Your history is a gloss which ignores too much - too many inconvenient facts.

Such as....?

In your jihad against the Ecumenical Patriarch

Jihad? If I suggested that the "upcoming" Great Council demote Constantinople in the diptychs, that would be a jihad.

Quote

(any Patriarch of Constantinople apparently),

No, if there is any ire, it is against Bp. Arb. EP Pope Meletios ? III I IV II.

Quote

you ignore the bits of relevant history, such as:

I did forget one bit: the Russo-American treatises in over 50 years earlier had guarenteed the Orthodox in America retain the Church properties of the Diocese, and guarentees for its status.

Quote

1) After 1917 the Russian Metropolia was effectively orphaned by its mother Moscow.

Yes and no. I just have time for a few points:

For starters, autocephaly had come to Moscow herself when her mother Constantinople had apostacized.

The Archbishop of North America Evdokim left America to attend the All Russia Sobor (Council) of 1917 which elected North America's former primate St. Tikhon as the (restored) Patriarch of Moscow, who in the early 1920's declared that all diocese's outside of Russia (which would have included, for instance, Finland, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland, Japan, etc.) should govern themselves autonomously. Arb. Evodokim could not return, so the All-American Sobor elected Bp. Alexander of Alaska (who had been so ordained in St. Petersburg, after serving as priest in PA, NJ and NY. As bishop he administrated the Archdiocese between Archb. Platon's recall to Russia and the arrival of Archb. Evodim, whereupon Bp. Alexander served as Bishop of Canada). . Pat. St. Tikhon's last undisputed act concerning North America before the ukaze to govern autonomouslyhttp://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Ukaz_No._362http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/ukaz.htmwas his confirmation of Archb. Alexander's election, the first primate of North America elected locally. Arch. Alexander proved overwhelmed by the chaos, and too nationalistic (he alienated the Ukraininans into setting up their own "Church," the predecessor of those Ukrainians under the EP that the speech talks about). In 1921 the Russian hierarchs outside of Russia convened in Karlovski, including Arb. Alexander and his predecessor (and St. Tikhon's successor as Archb. of North America and the Aleutians), Arch. Platon, formed the Karlovski Synod and confirmed Archb. Alexander as primate of North America. At the time, mind you, North America and the Aleustians was the only fully functioning diocese of the Russian Church, which was being torn by the "Living Church" schism: when the EP recognized the "Living Church" and its deposition of Pat. Tikhon, the subject of another thread

“ . . . the Holy Synod succeeded in influencing the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople Gregory VII to endorse the decision of the Russian Conclave, which deposed and unfrocked Dr. Tikhon, thus dealing the heaviest blow he had yet sustained.”

So, yes, the Metropolia was out of communion with the EP as they did not commune the heretical "Living Church." It can't have been completely out of communion, though, as when Archb. Platon returned to the U.S., Archb. Alexander tendered a letter of resignation to him asking that he resume the role of primate. This was when the Archdiocese was orphaned. Archp. Alexander went to Mt. Athos, and then became a bishop of the EP in Brussels until 1946, when he returned under the PoM. Archb. Platon resumed his duties for the orphaned Church.

The third All-American Council elected their former primate, Archb. Platon as Met. of All America and Canada. While Pat. St. Tikhon confirmed the election, the Karlovski Synod questioned it. Another All-American Council was held in 1924, confirming the election and authorizing Archb. Platon to establish temporary self government in accord with Pat. St. Tikhon's ukaze on autonomy of the dioceses outside of Russia, which his diocese was still the only fully functioning. ROCOR condemned the move and "deposed" Arch. Platon. So then the Metropolia was outside of communion with ROCOR, who was out of commmunion with the EP, who was in communion with the heretical "Living Church."

Quote

2) It was not in communion with any Orthodox church that I know of until 1970.

One bishop of the Metropolia dissented, Bp. Apollianary, and was expelled, and ROCOR thereupon "appointed" him primate of America while "deposing" Archb. Platon. When Met. Platon refused to take or require loyalty oaths to the Soviet regime (by that time, the Metropolia had been praying, per the Governing Holy Synod and the Czar's directive, for the President of the United States for decades) the PoM "deposed" him, and set up the Russian Exarchate of North America, which was not in communion with the Metropolia, nor with ROCOR. Was it in communion with the "Living Church" and the EP?

With the election of Met. Platon's successor, Archb. Theophilos (of Chicago, then) San Francisco, as Metropolitan of All America and Canada, ROCOR dropped its excommunication against the Metropolia and Met. Theophilos participated in the agreements between the Russian bishops not under the PoM brokered by Pat. Varnava of Serbia (who had participated as Serbia's representative in the All Russian Sobor of 1917, and thereafter involved in the restoration of the Serbian Patriarchate: since the EP didn't throw the usual trantrum over the restoration of abolished autocephalous and independent Churches, I assume he was in communion with the EP. Btw, Pat. Varnave opposed the Vatican concordant which, like in Romania, gave it privledged status in a majority Orthodox country with it's own autocephaly, and excommunicated any deputy who voted for it, something of interest in view of the Council of Ravenna and all this protos talk and other nonsense coming from the EP's office: the Patriarch may have been martyred for this opposition). Met. Theophilos insisted on autonomy, and the All American Council accepted the agreements, the ROCOR bishops participating in the Council but most of them abstaining from voting. After WWII Met. Theophilos tried a reproachment with the again restored PoM: the All American Council petitioned the Patriarchate to accept the Metropolia as an autonomous part of the Russian Church, which caused a split again from ROCOR, while the PoM's Soviet insisted on policies that the Metropolia could not accept.

Quote

Its canonical status was challenged to say the least. I was told outright in the 1950s that the "Russians" (meaning Metropolia) were "separated from us" and I was not allowed to go to their churches.

This was the situation in the 50's, when the EP was in communion with the PoM controlled by the Soviets like he himself was controlled by the Turks, and with ROCOR, who was not in communion with the PoM nor the Metropolia.

The Metropolia was in communion with the autonomous Church of Japan: Met. Theophilos son, a military intelligence officer involved with the Manhattan Project and the Alsos Mission packed the services of Nikolai-Do, the seat of the primate of Japan, with Orthodox of all persuasions (many who were not in communion with ROCOR or the PoM) to prevent a Soviet take over of the Church of Japan, re-established the Church's hierarchy: Japan remained under the Metropolia until autocephaly, when it returned under the PoM.

Quote

3) This cutoff from Moscow and subsequent canonical limbo could have been avoided by rapproachment with the ROCA bishops sent, but that did not happen.

The Metropolia was not under the same situation as the other bishops in ROCOR: it was a diocese intact with a primate confirmed by the Holy Governing Synod and the Patriarch. The EP bought these arguments from Met. Evlogy of Paris (whom Archb. Alexander had joined after abandoning the Metropolia), when he broke with ROCOR and joined the EP, what was the problem with Metropolia making the same arguments? except that the Metropolia was on even surer footing (Met. Platon having been first appointed primate of the Metropolia when the Church was still free, and the appointement by his successor/predecessor whose election in the intact Archdiocese as Metropolitan had been confirmed by the Patriarch and the Holy Synod before the autonomy ukaze, the source of ROCOR's authority) than Met. Evolgy.

Quote

4) If any precedence of the Russians existed in NA (and I think it did) THIS was the time to make the Metropolia an autocephalous church, instead of abandoning it as Moscow did.

Abandon it? Moscow was kidnapped.

No, given the circumstances, it was not the time to do so. The time to do so was when there was no question about authority, something that was not the case unfortunately under Pat. St. Tikhon, in part because of the "Living Church" schism endorsed by the EP, hence St. Tikhon's autonomy ukase.

Quote

5) All post 1917 activity happened at exactly the same time Greek immigration to the USA exploded (post WWI- Balkan Wars period + Greek/Turhish population exchange result) - several hundred thousand Greek Orthodox came through Ellis Island in a 5 year period (records online) and they wanted churches.

Funny, the Bulgarians wanted Churches in their own homeland, but the EP couldn't see fit to that. Too busy Hellenizing them.

There were bishops interesting in helping: the Metropolia had already done so for the Arabs, Serbs and Albanians. In fact, the Metropolia had helped found the Albania Church, when Greek priests refused to bury those who spoke Albanian. They knew where they were: the Metropolitan Church was in New York. Had been for decades. Ellis Island was also in New York, had been for decades.

The Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity in New Orleans doesn't have the original antimens (I can't help but have a feeling that Bp. Archp. EP Pope Meletius had something to do with that), but it does have a lovely Gospel Book, the gift of Czar Nicholas II to the parish. They knew where they were (btw, the first priest there wasn't Greek, but Ukrainian).

In fact, Bp. Archp. EP Pope Meletius spent a good part organizing in San Francisco, far, far away from those teaming hordes of Greek in the East, but less than two miles away from the Russian Cathedral, a Cathedral since the see had been moved there a half century earlier.

Quote

Let us tell you a little bit about the history of the Annunciation Cathedral community. St. Sophia, precursor to the Annunciation Cathedral, came into being June 1921, when the parishioners of the Holy Trinity Church, sympathetic to Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, established a second Greek Orthodox community in San Francisco. Land was acquired at Hayes and Pierce streets, all of the lots facing Pierce street from Hayes to Fell streets, for the purpose of building a Cathedral and an adjoining school and orphanage. Ground was broken June 1921, with a ceremony where His Eminence Metropolitan Meletios Metaxakis, Archbishop of Athens, laid the cornerstone of the cathedral.

In 1962 the Annunciation was named Cathedral for the Metropolis of San Francisco.

So, now I'm supposed to condemn my patriarch for providing for his flock with bishops and priests (and the Serbs, Romanians , and Antiochians theirs)?

Time's up. Gotta go. But before I finish answering this last bit, are you saying that the EP provided for the Serbs, Romanians and Antiochians?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:35:44 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Thanks for your more detailed reply. Of course in reading it one can't help but wonder why anyone would want their faithful involved in that Russian mess.

And if the EP's mendling had started after the Bolshevik revolution, that may be point. But it didn't: in 1908 gave juridiction over the Greek parishes in North America to the CoG. Problem, the EP didn't have jurisdiction the first place, Russia did. And in 1908 the Russian Archdiocese of North America and Alaska had already had a long line of primates, in their own cathedral, with diocesan and auxiliary bishops with their cathedrals, including vicarates for non Russian nationalities (Antiochians/Arabs, Serbs, (and provisions for even WRO), reception of scores of those returning to Orthodoxy from the Vatican, and erected monasteries. It had already had its first episcopal consecration, had its first All American Council, had begun the switch to the languages of the country (not only English, but the Amerindian languages too) and the commeration of the local government. Canonized saints had already labored in her vineyard.

In contrast, nobody from Constantinople nor the CoG had been anywhere near the U.S. and wouldn't for 10 years.

Quote

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA

In the United States, the first Greek Orthodox Church was founded in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1864 by a small colony of Greek merchants. The church was blessed by a Ukrainian priest, Father Agapius Honcharenko, who had immigrated to the USA via Athens, Greece in 1865. Though Ukrainian, he maintained the chapel at the residence of the Greek Consul-General in New York. After the American Civil War, immigration from Greece increased dramatically and in 1891 a church was opened in New York. In 1898, a second Greek Orthodox Church opened in Chicago.

The number of Greek Orthodox Churches in the United States continued to increase, and by 1910 there were 35 congregations around the country. Under an agreement made in 1908 between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Synod of Athens, jurisdiction of these churches was given to the Church of Greece, but no steps were taken to organize an American diocese until 1918 when the Metropolitan of Athens himself visited the United States. Greek Orthodoxy in the USA continued at an intensified rate throughout the early part of the 20th Century, and by 1920 60% of current Greek communities and their churches were founded.

Now, that's not all bad. If the GOA had been part of the OCA recent problem could have been worse.

Quote

As to closing question: No, I am not so asserting. Each mother church provided for their own. So, while you are being critical of one, be fair, include all who are here.

Including my own Patriarchs: no, neither Antioch nor Alexandria should have ever opened up local branchs. Antioch was particularly egregious in that regard.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 05:02:13 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Including my own Patriarchs: no, neither Antioch nor Alexandria should have ever opened up local branchs. Antioch was particularly egregious in that regard.

Thanks Isa. A gracious and honest answer which precludes any lengthy response by me. Of course, it does beg the question, "Why aren't you in the OCA"?

I was unaware of Alexandria having a presence in NA., btw.

Quote

In contrast, nobody from Constantinople nor the CoG had been anywhere near the U.S. and wouldn't for 10 years

This also is interesting to me. Both sides of my family were already here by 1907 and I have read a hard copy history of my baptismal parish detailing its formation in 1910. Both of my grandfathers were active in that formation. I wonder where their priest came from? The last surviving member of that founding group recently passed on (talk about long-lived) and I never thought to interview him.

I am immensely enjoying this topic. And I am beginning to glimpse the reasoning behind the patriarch's definition of 'diaspora' - not that I could succinctly word it here, yet.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 07:13:33 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Jihad? If I suggested that the "upcoming" Great Council demote Constantinople in the diptychs, that would be a jihad.

Since the question of the diptychs is on the agenda for the Great Council there is no reason at all why this cannot be debated.

I think that it may be premature to legislate for such a change, since it may precipitate schism within Orthodoxy, but it can certainly be discussed as a future possibility.

Rome's authority was based on its position in the Empire - the canons more than make this clear.

Likewise Constantinople's was based on its position in the Empire.

With the demise of both the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the canons have fallen into limbo inasmuch as the underlying basis for them has been entirely removed.

The canons are not in "limbo" just because there is no Roman Empire for them to remain part of the Roman Code of Laws.

You are right. I am guilty of inaccurate expression. Apologies. Let me offer a correction.

1. The "specifics" of the canons, whether for Rome or Constantinople, no longer apply.

2. The "principle" of the canons -that the See of primary honour should be the city which holds the pre-eminence of political and spiritual power- this principle still applies. In this instance both Rome and Constantinople do not satisfy the spirit of the criteria of the canons any longer. We must look elsewhere in the Church.

A part of me, the untamed Irish part which enjoys a donnybrook, will enjoy the brawling which is likely to erupt when the Great Council gets to consider the diptychs. The speech last Monday by the Very Reverend Archimandrite Elpidophoros is just one of Constantinople's opening salvos. The other part of me trembles for the damage which the Patriarchs could do to the holy Church and her unity.

Including my own Patriarchs: no, neither Antioch nor Alexandria should have ever opened up local branchs. Antioch was particularly egregious in that regard.

Thanks Isa. A gracious and honest answer which precludes any lengthy response by me. Of course, it does beg the question, "Why aren't you in the OCA"?

Personal reasons (somewhere else on this thread I think Ozgeorge asked me): my then wife's confessor asked me to switch so he would have full authority to deal with the upcoming divorce.

I'll have to answer further why I don't consider it a problem, but I don't think I'll have time enough now before I have to get the boys up for Church.

Quote

I was unaware of Alexandria having a presence in NA., btw.

It has happened a couple of times. I just came across this the other day:

Quote

List of American BishopsAmerican Orthodox bishops are men serving as bishops in some capacity, whether with dioceses or exercising authority of some kind in the United States and Canada. The dates following their names indicate the years during which they served as bishops in America. Church of AlexandriaAlexandrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Church in the United States, 1947-1950Christopher (Contogeorge) of Pentapolis, 1947-1950

When I was in Cairo a missionary (or opportunist: I wasn't terribly impressed with the man. But then Afrocentrists try my patience) was elevated by the Pope to archimandirite. It seemed what he said that a lot of the parishes were in the Caribbean. I've been told Alexandria was bought off again by Constantinople and the Church of Greece (similar things happened with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in America). The CofG funds certain parishes and things in Egypt too. When the boy scotts came for an honor guard for the American embassador to Cyrpus (who was Greek) at a DL, their tags had the Greek, not the Egyptian, flag.

Quote

In contrast, nobody from Constantinople nor the CoG had been anywhere near the U.S. and wouldn't for 10 years

Quote

This also is interesting to me. Both sides of my family were already here by 1907 and I have read a hard copy history of my baptismal parish detailing its formation in 1910. Both of my grandfathers were active in that formation. I wonder where their priest came from? The last surviving member of that founding group recently passed on (talk about long-lived) and I never thought to interview him.

I am immensely enjoying this topic. And I am beginning to glimpse the reasoning behind the patriarch's definition of 'diaspora' - not that I could succinctly word it here, yet.

When you get the words, please post.

Not that it is related to your post, but before I forget: does any one have a copy of the Met. of Sardis' work on the EP, and could post the tome of the Council of Constantinople 1872, the "anti-Phyletism Synod"?

Is there an available text of the 1908 agreement between the EP and the CoG on America and Australia. I think a lot of what's been going on here has its roots in what was going on there. In 1908 Bulgaria declared its independence (the culmination of the events surrounding 1872) and the Young Turk revolution occured, which led to the CUP going from a reforminst group with lots of support from the Millets to an instrument of Turkification.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jihad? If I suggested that the "upcoming" Great Council demote Constantinople in the diptychs, that would be a jihad.

Since the question of the diptychs is on the agenda for the Great Council there is no reason at all why this cannot be debated.

I think that it may be premature to legislate for such a change, since it may precipitate schism within Orthodoxy, but it can certainly be discussed as a future possibility.

Rome's authority was based on its position in the Empire - the canons more than make this clear.

Likewise Constantinople's was based on its position in the Empire.

With the demise of both the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the canons have fallen into limbo inasmuch as the underlying basis for them has been entirely removed.

The canons are not in "limbo" just because there is no Roman Empire for them to remain part of the Roman Code of Laws.

You are right. I am guilty of inaccurate expression. Apologies. Let me offer a correction.

1. The "specifics" of the canons, whether for Rome or Constantinople, no longer apply.

2. The "principle" of the canons -that the See of primary honour should be the city which holds the pre-eminence of political and spiritual power- this principle still applies. In this instance both Rome and Constantinople do not satisfy the spirit of the criteria of the canons any longer. We must look elsewhere in the Church.

I'm pursuing this (painfully slowly) on the autocephaly thread. Briefly:1) Jerusalem didn't lose its authority, autocephaly and primacy when the city was destoryed, its original pool for the episcopacy (the Desposyni and Hebrew Chrisitans) dispersed. Canon 7 of Nicea just reconizes that fact that the metropolis of Caesarea did not have the same authority as metropolis did elsewhere.2) Even if it is not the capital of the Empire, it is still the See of St. Gregory Nazeanzis, St. John Chrysostom, the site of 3 (4,5) Ecumenical Councils, the Mother Church of much of Orthodoxy (at least 5 autocephalous Churches, including Russia), the Mother of the Liturgies of most of us, etc.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Little wonder that ozgeorge wisely moved this topic into Free-For-All...

Seems an odd place, doesn't it, for a thread concerning a major position paper from Constantinople brought to America by its legate, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Elpidophoros, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople.

Little wonder that ozgeorge wisely moved this topic into Free-For-All...

Seems an odd place, doesn't it, for a thread concerning a major position paper from Constantinople brought to America by its legate, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Elpidophoros, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople.

Why is Religious Topics in Free For All an odd place for it? Should it be in Non-Religious Topics?

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 11:55:57 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Little wonder that ozgeorge wisely moved this topic into Free-For-All...

Seems an odd place, doesn't it, for a thread concerning a major position paper from Constantinople brought to America by its legate, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Elpidophoros, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople.

Why is Religious Topics in Free For All an odd place for it? Should it be in Non-Religious Topics?

Well, perhaps I was mistaken and it is the right place really. "Free For All" is intended for "hot topics that may be of a polemical nature" and I suppose you are indicating that the contentions of the Very Reverened Archimandrite Elpidophoros are polemical or possibly polemical. They will be challenged by the faithful.

I thought you had in mind the polemical material included in the message from Constantinople to the United States. I refer to the less than diplomatic words addressed by the Very Reverend Archimandrite to the Primates of other Orthodox Churches in America. His words seem to lead inevitably to conflict betwen Constantinople and the OCA and the AOCNA. Since one cannot imagine that a mere Archimandrite would be so insolent on his own authority one wonders if the message he delivered at Holy Cross was intended by Constantinople to spark controversy?

Has there been any clarificiation as to whether the Very Reverend Archimandrite was speaking as a delegate of the global Primus at Holy Cross? I suppose that what I have in mind is whether, when he made the remarks about the Primi of the OCA and the AOCNA, he was speaking in his private capacity as a monk or was he speaking as a representative of the Sacred Synod and the global Primus?

You mean another mere monk's opinion? I guess we assume your bishop approves your stance here, good to know.

Dear Aristoklis,

Apart from Fr Anastasios and Fr Chris who presumably have a blessing to be operating the forum, I do not imagine that anyone here has sought permision from their bishops before participating.

Surely it is simply taken for granted that participants are "chewing the fat" and expresing their own private opinions and not that of their Church. I would not be surprised if that is not stated in the forum's Rules?

However, it may surprise you to know that my Patriarch issued a statemnt a few years back encouraging his clergy to take part in Internet discussions and to use the Net as a tool for educational and and missionary purposes. In my years on CAF and now on OC.net I have found that there are opportinuties to accomplish what he suggested.

Has there been any clarificiation as to whether the Very Reverend Archimandrite was speaking as a delegate of the global Primus at Holy Cross? I suppose that what I have in mind is whether, when he made the remarks about the Primi of the OCA and the AOCNA, he was speaking in his private capacity as a monk or was he speaking as a representative of the Sacred Synod and the global Primus?

Anybody know? What about the forum's Holy Cross students?

Well, let's see:

Quote

Challenges of Orthodoxy in America

And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

By

Very Reverend Archimandrite

Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis

Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod

(Chapel of the Holy Cross, March 16, 2009)

It is an exceptional honor and a great joy for me to be here today, among you, with the blessing and permission of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch and the consent of His Eminence the Archbishop of America, in order to share with you some thoughts regarding the present condition of Orthodoxy in America and our Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position towards it.

Having attempted this general evaluation of the American Orthodoxy, allow me to consider briefly the Holy Archdiocese of America, this most important eparchy of the Ecumenical Throne.

To this effect, the active participation of the lay element was, as we have seen, very important. We

"We"? Doesn't sound like a monk.

Quote

believe that the younger generations of the omogeneia are free of the past’s prejudices and complexes, according to which, if you wish to succeed in America you have to forget your cultural patrimony and your language in order to be left naked, so to speak, in the thorny desert of the Wild West. Today’s omogeneia has overcome that denial and has come to understand that the secret of the American civilization’s success does not lie in the obliteration of one’s cultural background but rather in the free and harmonious co-existence of people and races who have come to this hospitable land seeking a life in freedom, in faith and in dignity. Our cultural heritage and our national conscience is not, by any means, an obstacle for our progress and for the successful witness to our faith, especially insofar as ecumenicity (οἰκουμενικότης) is the heart of Hellenism and by definition alien to any form of nationalism or cultural chauvinism.

Precisely because the Holy Archdiocese of America occupies such an esteemed position in this country we

there's that editorial, or is it royal? "we."

Quote

are obliged to offer a self-criticism but also to defend ourselves against the unjust accusations that target this jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

On account of this canon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has suffered the unfair and unjust criticism of two American Orthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Phillip and the newly elected Metropolitan Jonas.

It is my duty to refute the injustice directed against the Mother Church of Constantinople for the sake of historical truth and for the sake of moral conscience.

Summarizing my lecture, I wish to call your attention to the following points:

As you surely know, last October the Ecumenical Patriarchate summoned in Constantinople a Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. The Primates accepted the proposal of Patriarch Bartholomew to move ahead with the Pan-Orthodox preparatory meetings, within 2009, so that the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church take place as soon as possible. For the record, please note that this decision was reached thanks to the concession on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which accepted that the Autonomous Churches will no longer be invited as to avoid the thorny problem of the Church of Estonia in the relations between Constantinople and Moscow.

1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is a Church that undergoes martyrdom, a Church that often has received unfair criticism, especially by those Churches which were most richly benefited by it. At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ. What better example than the Slavic tribes which owe even their alphabet to the Thessalonian brothers Cyril and Methodios. I, who speak to you tonight, although I am an Antiochean from my maternal side, nevertheless I serve as the Chief-Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

I think we have the answer to your question.

Btw, I just noticed something:

Quote

I do not support the opinion that the services here in America should be done exclusively in Greek. Simply I do not understand how it is possible that any priest of the Archdiocese might not be able to serve in both languages. It is not understandable how an institution of higher education cannot manage to teach its students a language, even in the time span of four years!

Metropolitan Jonas claims that in America “there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic linguistic and cultural divisions.” Does His Eminence ignore the fact that under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America belong Greeks, Palestinians, Albanians, Ukrainians and Carpathorussians? Is this not proof enough of a common structure that supersedes ethnic and cultural divisions? Does he imply perhaps that SCOBA either constitutes a common expression of unity that supersedes such divisions?

So those Palestinians, Albanians, Ukrainians and Carpathorussians might not be able to serve in both Greek and English?

I recall when the EP was here and celebrated at the Carpathorussian diocese. Many complained that he couldn't even do a simple litany in Slavonic. It was purely in Greek.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 10:03:22 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And no, he was there on his own - all people that work for the Patriarchate refer to it in the plural, since there are quite a few people who work for the Patriarchate - they see it in terms of "Patriarch, Synod, Clergy, Deacons, and lay staff."

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

First, I would like to give our exchange a little context. My youngest child is a bit older than you and I feel slightly disoriented by the blunt and disrespectful language you use, as shown in the quote below:

Quote

Are you a man "who sees through the facade and doesn't buy it," or "who is confronted with the truth and doesn't buy it." Believe it or not, the EP doesn't micromanage his priests, and does allow them to go and speak as they wish. He didn't "send him to confront the Metropolitans," and since you've decided to make the claim, you're going to have to prove it or have your statements rendered irrelevant. Without any semblance of logic or substantiation, your cries of "lapdog" to Fr. Elpidoforos will look as pathetic to everyone else as they do to me.

I will say that I hold to my opinion that I arrived at with some knowledge of how large bureaucracies operate and the words of the esteemed Doctor himself.

You took great exception when I contradicted the Archimandrite's claim that "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." I said "This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans."

You challenged me to substantiate my view and I reluctantly did so: "Are you familiar with the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Church in the 19th century? It was called the Bulgarian Exarchate and covered all of Modern day Bulgaria, almost all of modern day northern Greece, and the current Republic of Macedonia. A German map showing the boundaries may be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bulgarian-Exarchate-1870-1913.jpg. The reasons were partly the Bulgarian national renaissance and partly the insistence by the Patriarchate to suppress the national awaking/promote Hellenism or Greekness. You may remember the 1903 Ilinden Rebellion in the Macedonia and Adrinople regions against the Ottoman Turks. You may not know that it failed and was brutally suppressed by the Turks, aided and abetted by some of the Patriarchate's clergy who guided the Turkish troops to the Bulgarian villages. You know, people remember this knife in the back from a fellow Orthodox (and clergy to boot) better than any atrocity that comes from one's enemy. Do you need more evidence? [/quote]

You asked for some substantiation "just to satisfy my interest in history." I will give you two additional sources. But, before I do that I should say on the record that since the birth of nationalism, almost all nations have done very bad things in their nation-building phase. In my mind, this was particularly true in the Balkans: one's own character and qualities were exaggerated as were the faults of the "enemy." Nonetheless, it is a fantasy to maintain that the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not practice Hellenism of the "Greek Chauvinist" kind. What do I mean by that? The very reason for the re-establishment of the Bulgarian Church/Exarchate was the centuries old attempt to equate Orthodoxy with Greekness or Hellenism. The Patriarchate used many techniques, the most prominent of which was the denial to the people the use their own native language and the assignment of Greek clergy.

The answer to your question is this: For the claim that Greek clergy guided the Turks to the Bulgarian villages and fighters (chetniks) my source was my grandfather who was an eyewitness of this as a Ilinden chetnik.

However, possibly the best neutral study of the Balkan cauldron is the Report of the International Commission to inquire into the causes and conduct of the Balkan wars by International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars.; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Division of Intercourse and Education, 1914. If you use a global library search, you may find if it is readily available in Northern Ohio university libraries.

I hope you will delay reading this book for a month or so because it contains many sickening details. I also want to say to everybody that I regret bringing up these things--not in the middle of Lent anyway. I am truly sorry.

However, possibly the best neutral study of the Balkan cauldron is the Report of the International Commission to inquire into the causes and conduct of the Balkan wars by International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars.; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Division of Intercourse and Education, 1914. If you use a global library search, you may find if it is readily available in Northern Ohio university libraries.

I hope you will delay reading this book for a month or so because it contains many sickening details. I also want to say to everybody that I regret bringing up these things--not in the middle of Lent anyway. I am truly sorry.

Gives a good summary of how the PoM liberated the Arab Orthodox in Syria from the Episcopal cartel in the Phanar.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

First, I would like to give our exchange a little context. My youngest child is a bit older than you and I feel slightly disoriented by the blunt and disrespectful language you use, as shown in the quote below:

Quote

Are you a man "who sees through the facade and doesn't buy it," or "who is confronted with the truth and doesn't buy it." Believe it or not, the EP doesn't micromanage his priests, and does allow them to go and speak as they wish. He didn't "send him to confront the Metropolitans," and since you've decided to make the claim, you're going to have to prove it or have your statements rendered irrelevant. Without any semblance of logic or substantiation, your cries of "lapdog" to Fr. Elpidoforos will look as pathetic to everyone else as they do to me.

I will say that I hold to my opinion that I arrived at with some knowledge of how large bureaucracies operate and the words of the esteemed Doctor himself.

Well, I suppose I should also provide context to my comments as well: my comments may have been blunt, but do not presume to read into them that I do not respect you; far from it. Anyone willing to contribute to the dialogue in a meaningful way deserves respect. However, I do not believe that all positions and assertions deserve respect, which is why at varying points I will not respect them if I find (from my perspective) some flaw in them, especially if said flaw seems to be fundamental to their argument (rather than, say, some minor flaw in the presentation or in the periphery of the argument).

You took great exception when I contradicted the Archimandrite's claim that "At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." I said "This is a complete lie, the opposite of historical truth, and one which I am sure would not be presented to the non-Greek populations of the Balkans."

You challenged me to substantiate my view and I reluctantly did so: "Are you familiar with the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Church in the 19th century? It was called the Bulgarian Exarchate and covered all of Modern day Bulgaria, almost all of modern day northern Greece, and the current Republic of Macedonia. A German map showing the boundaries may be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bulgarian-Exarchate-1870-1913.jpg. The reasons were partly the Bulgarian national renaissance and partly the insistence by the Patriarchate to suppress the national awaking/promote Hellenism or Greekness. You may remember the 1903 Ilinden Rebellion in the Macedonia and Adrinople regions against the Ottoman Turks. You may not know that it failed and was brutally suppressed by the Turks, aided and abetted by some of the Patriarchate's clergy who guided the Turkish troops to the Bulgarian villages. You know, people remember this knife in the back from a fellow Orthodox (and clergy to boot) better than any atrocity that comes from one's enemy. Do you need more evidence?

I need not remind you, who has studied the issues that have festered within the Balkans, that the actions of one or even a number of clergy may not represent official positions of their respective churches/ Patriarchates. I'm sure there are examples of clergy from all the different jurisdictions (Romanian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian) involved in the Balkans of atrocities and poor decision making on a local level that wasn't related to policy or direction on a Church-wide level. I'm not asserting that your point isn't true, just that the evidence only points to local collusion, not systemic.

You asked for some substantiation "just to satisfy my interest in history." I will give you two additional sources. But, before I do that I should say on the record that since the birth of nationalism, almost all nations have done very bad things in their nation-building phase. In my mind, this was particularly true in the Balkans: one's own character and qualities were exaggerated as were the faults of the "enemy."

And I did mean what I said: I wasn't asking for substantiation out of some sense of skepticism, but rather because I enjoy the study of history, and am intrigued by the accounting of history in the Balkans of my ancestors.

Nonetheless, it is a fantasy to maintain that the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not practice Hellenism of the "Greek Chauvinist" kind. What do I mean by that? The very reason for the re-establishment of the Bulgarian Church/Exarchate was the centuries old attempt to equate Orthodoxy with Greekness or Hellenism. The Patriarchate used many techniques, the most prominent of which was the denial to the people the use their own native language and the assignment of Greek clergy.

Again, I don't doubt the possibility of your argument being true and valid; and certainly consider the possibility that it is completely true to be tragic - it would be better if there was clear evidence to oppose your statements in their totality, however such evidence doesn't exist, making this discussion necessary and the possible outcome of the study tragic. But, again, collusion on the local level does not equate to a system-wide action plan in the same direction.

The answer to your question is this: For the claim that Greek clergy guided the Turks to the Bulgarian villages and fighters (chetniks) my source was my grandfather who was an eyewitness of this as a Ilinden chetnik.

Noted. For me, eyewitness accounts, while considered unreliable for court purposes, are generally quite valid in the understudied history of the Balkans (read: thank you, yes I believe you and your grandfather, and consider the substance of his claim to be a tragedy brought upon an Orthodox community by other Orthodox Christians).

However, possibly the best neutral study of the Balkan cauldron is the Report of the International Commission to inquire into the causes and conduct of the Balkan wars by International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars.; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Division of Intercourse and Education, 1914. If you use a global library search, you may find if it is readily available in Northern Ohio university libraries.

I hope you will delay reading this book for a month or so because it contains many sickening details. I also want to say to everybody that I regret bringing up these things--not in the middle of Lent anyway. I am truly sorry.

The book is actually in the Google Books library; I have downloaded it. It will take quite a bit of time to get through it, though, and since it is scanned I cannot search it to more quickly come to the sections more germane to our discussion.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

You challenged me to substantiate my view and I reluctantly did so: "Are you familiar with the reestablishment of the Bulgarian Church in the 19th century? It was called the Bulgarian Exarchate and covered all of Modern day Bulgaria, almost all of modern day northern Greece, and the current Republic of Macedonia. A German map showing the boundaries may be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bulgarian-Exarchate-1870-1913.jpg. The reasons were partly the Bulgarian national renaissance and partly the insistence by the Patriarchate to suppress the national awaking/promote Hellenism or Greekness.

Does anyone know if the text of firman restoring the Bulgarian patriarchate is available? Is their a tomos that abolished it?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was quite pleased to see him adress these issues, which I think are more immediate. If the promotion of Hellenism within the GOA means a reversal of these issues, and not merely a promotion of Greek-ness, then it's something I'd be very supportive of.

On the otherhand to many English-only speaking Orthodox Christians regretfully, Hellenism and Greek-ness are one and the same. It will have to be redefined better and definitely better in practice than it currently is by the Hellenic Churches.

It will have to be redefined better and definitely better in practice than it currently is by the Hellenic Churches.

Why?

Because, as the absurdities and revisionism of the Chief Secretary show, quite a school of big fish don't know that they are wet.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 09:28:05 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It will have to be redefined better and definitely better in practice than it currently is by the Hellenic Churches.

Why?

When I became Orthodox it was through the local Greek Orthodox Church about 5 blocks from my house. When I initially came into the Orthodox Church I was told by several priests that in order to be Orthodox I must become Hellenized. When I asked what that meant, their reply was I must " think, act, and speaks as a Greek." They encouraged me to have my children to learn Greek ( I thought that odd in itself as the parish we lived in had no Greek School---my godfather a third generation from Greek emigrants knew only a few words of Greek and could not carry on a conversation with the few Old emigrants we had who did speak Greek. Our parish worshipped in the Koine Greek Language, Our Gospel readers knew only phonetic Greek---they did not know what they were reading). Yes the GOA encourages Hellenism "Not Greek-ness" then they tell us that to understand Hellenism, we must learn to do Greek dances, use Greek Phrases, work at the annual Greek Festival, and even assure that our Girl children learn to cook Greek Food so they can get a good Greek Orthodox Boy to marry them.

This is why I said that we must learn to separte Hellenism from Greek-ness---I don't think the GOA is ready for that.

None of this is directed at a single person or post, it's just my feelings from reading several posts in this thread.

I just have to say that I love the sweeping generalizations on this thread that are based on one's individual experience. I've grown up in the GOA, and have never been told that I have to learn Greek, learn Greek dances (I did that because I wanted to-- my father was a professional dancer), cook Greek (which, even as a chef, I have done very LITTLE Greek cooking in my life-- I'd never even made baklava before the Greek Festival at our parish last year!), or marry a Greek boy (in fact, I would say it was almost the opposite-- my sister married a Chinese man, who was welcomed with open arms both in my family and in our parish-- he's now the treasurer). Just because a priest or two or three or even fifty have their priorities misplaced does not mean that this is the official stance of the GOA, or that the GOA is not fighting that with all its might. We have to walk a fine line. We have to educate the people to bring about change, but not force it such that the people walk away. Believe me, as a presbytera in one of the largest and oldest GOA parishes in the country (which happens to be the Metropolis Cathedral), it is a VERY fine line. I don't like all the extra-liturgical Greek based organizations who exist solely to be Greek. They have no place in the Church and should be moved elsewhere. But it has to be a gradual transition. And we are working in that direction. Having a huge number of friends who are also clergy in the GOA, I can say with much certainty that this is the case in most, if not all, of the GOA parishes (that we are moving away from these things).

Further, if it were true that the Patriarchate, and thus the GOA was "Hellenising" its parishes, or stuck in being Greek, or whatever, then explain to me why we (among others), the Metropolis Cathedral, with over 1000 families, one of the oldest Greek parishes in the GOA, are doing the Liturgy in almost all ENGLISH?! How is that being stuck in our Greekness? Our priests serve the Liturgy in English (our early Liturgy on Sundays, done in the METROPOLIS CHAPEL, is about 99% English), we read the Epistle and Gospel in at least both languages, if not only English, the sermons are ALWAYS given in English, etc. Yes, we do still do some Greek, mostly in the services (such as Orthros) which are attended only by the old Greek ladies, or when the prayers/hymns have not yet been translated into English (or we don't have them at hand).

Let me give another small example of what I'm talking about... This past Saturday night, we had a visiting bishop from Greece who DOES NOT SPEAK ENGLISH on the throne for Vespers. During the service, our bishop (Metropolitan +ALEXIOS of Atlanta), who is himself currently sitting on the PATRIARCHAL SYNOD, stood next to me at the chant stand, and, despite the visiting non-English-speaking Bishop on the throne, CHANTED IN ENGLISH! Half of what he chanted was in English, and I, as well, chanted in English (which he ALWAYS encourages me to do). If His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, or the Patriarchate itself, is truly trying to Hellenize parishes and refusing to let go of Hellenism, then doesn't the situation I just described absolutely defy logic and defy him?! I daresay that a bishop who sits on the Patriarchal synod would not go in direct violation of the policies and goals of his hierarch by not only encouraging the usage of English in all his churches (the least of which being his Cathedral), but by himself chanting and liturgizing in English with a visiting bishop present who can testify to this fact! Do you think he'll be deposed for this? Because surely the "Hellenizing" Ecumenical Patriarch won't stand for that! Oh, by the way, another of +ALEXIOS' wonderful programs and visions is translation of the services and music into English/Western notation. He preaches about it, encourages it, and even brought a priest who does this work into his Metropolis, whose translations and music he is MANDATING be used in the Church. Is this the work of a "Hellenizing" GOA? I think not.

I find it hard to understand how people can make such assumptions and generalizations about GOA parishes that they themselves don't attend, and, if anything, have only visited! Even so, one parish does not define the entire GOA. One priest does not the entirety of the Church make!

I feel sure I will be fully attacked for this, as it is apparent from this thread that the purple demons of Lent are indeed alive, well, and stirring the pot. But I felt I must address this, and that I am in a unique position to do so, as I said, coming from the position of being married to one of the priests (and therefore privy to what goes on behind the scenes and the attitude/feelings of the clergy regarding this issue) of one of the largest and most prominent parishes in the GOA. I do not say this to somehow boast, lest I be attacked for it, simply to emphasize that our parish is one of the leaders in the GOA, and that I think we are moving in the right direction. No, we won't be able to completely eliminate all aspects of Greek culture by tomorrow (not that the Liturgical language has ANYTHING to do with Greek culture, it doesn't), but we are moving toward a happy medium where "Greek Orthodox" describes only the liturgical tradition from which we descend and to which we ascribe (as opposed to the Russian, Antiochian, and other traditions), and not to an imposition of nationality in God's Church.

Instead of criticizing from our lofty places on high, how about if we all contribute positively and try to help the efforts by educating the faithful? This should always be our goal, not criticizing and ridiculing our fellow Orthodox and our hierarchs.

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

It will have to be redefined better and definitely better in practice than it currently is by the Hellenic Churches.

Why?

Because, as the absurdities and revisionism of the Chief Secretary show, quite a school of big fish don't know that they are wet.

Could you be a bit clearer please? What absurdities and revisionism and who are the school of big fish?

I posted a reply which just disappeared, going line by line. I'm taking the boys to the museum now, and don't have time to retype. Lord willing, I will.

In the meantime, the answer to your last question is the EP and the Holy Synod of Constantinople who are trying to foist this "protos" and "Canon 28" nonsense on the rest of us.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What seems odd to me is actually how little is even addressing what was in the speech itself.

If you are referring to my post, as I said, I was responding to various posts on this thread. I was addressing the criticisms, accusations, allegations, and all around negative comments leveled against the Ecumenical Patriarch (and the Patriarchate) and the GOA. I was addressing the issue of "Hellenizing" the parishes, a refusal to let go of the Greek language and culture, which, I believe, is what was being discussed because of the speech.

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

Excellent Post GreekChef. That combined with the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russian Churches, Belorusian Churches and Albanian Churches in the US should (theoretically) help to dispel some misapprehensions; however, given my experience on this forum, may be not.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Excellent Post GreekChef. That combined with the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russian Churches, Belorusian Churches and Albanian Churches in the US should (theoretically) help to dispel some misapprehensions; however, given my experience on this forum, may be not.

To be fair though, none of those groups have been incorporated into the structure of the GOA. Instead we just have overlapping jurisdictions within the same jurisdiction a la the OCA. Even us under the EP have a long way to go until the dream of a pan-Orthodox jurisdiction under the omniphoron of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is reached.

If Metropolitan Alexios is so wonderful why didn'y he come down to Pensacola, Florida when we had a division in our parish which resulted in families leaving and starting an Antiochian parish. This little city cannot support two Orthoodx Churches. What also happened in naples with father Han's and what is happening in Panama City, Florida and Gainesvile,FloridaWhat would his All-Holiness think about this situation?

None of this is directed at a single person or post, it's just my feelings from reading several posts in this thread.

I was going to return to reposting my critque of the Chief Secretary. But you're always a decent person, so I'd thought I'd move my reply to this first.

Quote

I just have to say that I love the sweeping generalizations on this thread that are based on one's individual experience. I've grown up in the GOA, and have never been told that I have to learn Greek, learn Greek dances (I did that because I wanted to-- my father was a professional dancer), cook Greek (which, even as a chef, I have done very LITTLE Greek cooking in my life-- I'd never even made baklava before the Greek Festival at our parish last year!), or marry a Greek boy (in fact, I would say it was almost the opposite-- my sister married a Chinese man, who was welcomed with open arms both in my family and in our parish-- he's now the treasurer).

I don't doubt your word or at least your viewpoint.

I do know others who have a different story to tell. There are enough elements, however, to help bolster your (meaning Greekchef's) case. For instance, I remember going to talk to the dean of the Greek Cathedral here on behalf of someone who had proposed to a Greek girl. The parents refused, because he wasn't Greek Orthodox, although he was preparing to convert, and even was learning Greek (which was more the shock: he is an "English only" type for everything). The priest said that he would marry them without any problem, and pulled out the registry and showed me how many mixed couples got married. Many converted, some did not. (this, of course, had come up about the number of mixed marriages, with the number of conversions of people who go on to be among the most active. Like your brother in law). He did tell me about a man that, because he wanted to marry a Jewess, that he would have to decide, if she didn't convert, between her and his heritage. Which of course was the proper line for the priest to draw.

So you were not forced to speak. I know some who had the experience. And myself, I've had the experience of basically "disappering" while speaking Greek, when I said I wasn't Greek.

Quote

Just because a priest or two or three or even fifty have their priorities misplaced does not mean that this is the official stance of the GOA, or that the GOA is not fighting that with all its might. We have to walk a fine line. We have to educate the people to bring about change, but not force it such that the people walk away. Believe me, as a presbytera in one of the largest and oldest GOA parishes in the country (which happens to be the Metropolis Cathedral), it is a VERY fine line. I don't like all the extra-liturgical Greek based organizations who exist solely to be Greek. They have no place in the Church and should be moved elsewhere. But it has to be a gradual transition. And we are working in that direction. Having a huge number of friends who are also clergy in the GOA, I can say with much certainty that this is the case in most, if not all, of the GOA parishes (that we are moving away from these things).

Many of us worry less about GOA and more about the EP. I knew some missionaries who were at Holy Cross, when "the EP Troika" came, the one bishop exclaiming how proud he was to having brought Hellenism (one of the Chief Secretary's favorite words, it seems) to Australia. He said the Greek seminarians were as taken aback. This was in the aftermath of Archb. Iakovos of blessed memory's forced retirement, and I remember the discussions in the Greek Churches at the time, hearing things I never thought I'd hear Greeks say.

Quote

Further, if it were true that the Patriarchate, and thus the GOA was "Hellenising" its parishes, or stuck in being Greek, or whatever, then explain to me why we (among others), the Metropolis Cathedral, with over 1000 families, one of the oldest Greek parishes in the GOA, are doing the Liturgy in almost all ENGLISH?! How is that being stuck in our Greekness? Our priests serve the Liturgy in English (our early Liturgy on Sundays, done in the METROPOLIS CHAPEL, is about 99% English), we read the Epistle and Gospel in at least both languages, if not only English, the sermons are ALWAYS given in English, etc. Yes, we do still do some Greek, mostly in the services (such as Orthros) which are attended only by the old Greek ladies, or when the prayers/hymns have not yet been translated into English (or we don't have them at hand).

Let me give another small example of what I'm talking about... This past Saturday night, we had a visiting bishop from Greece who DOES NOT SPEAK ENGLISH on the throne for Vespers. During the service, our bishop (Metropolitan +ALEXIOS of Atlanta), who is himself currently sitting on the PATRIARCHAL SYNOD, stood next to me at the chant stand, and, despite the visiting non-English-speaking Bishop on the throne, CHANTED IN ENGLISH! Half of what he chanted was in English, and I, as well, chanted in English (which he ALWAYS encourages me to do). If His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, or the Patriarchate itself, is truly trying to Hellenize parishes and refusing to let go of Hellenism, then doesn't the situation I just described absolutely defy logic and defy him?! I daresay that a bishop who sits on the Patriarchal synod would not go in direct violation of the policies and goals of his hierarch by not only encouraging the usage of English in all his churches (the least of which being his Cathedral), but by himself chanting and liturgizing in English with a visiting bishop present who can testify to this fact! Do you think he'll be deposed for this? Because surely the "Hellenizing" Ecumenical Patriarch won't stand for that! Oh, by the way, another of +ALEXIOS' wonderful programs and visions is translation of the services and music into English/Western notation. He preaches about it, encourages it, and even brought a priest who does this work into his Metropolis, whose translations and music he is MANDATING be used in the Church. Is this the work of a "Hellenizing" GOA? I think not.

I find it hard to understand how people can make such assumptions and generalizations about GOA parishes that they themselves don't attend, and, if anything, have only visited! Even so, one parish does not define the entire GOA. One priest does not the entirety of the Church make!

Quote

I feel sure I will be fully attacked for this, as it is apparent from this thread that the purple demons of Lent are indeed alive, well, and stirring the pot. But I felt I must address this, and that I am in a unique position to do so, as I said, coming from the position of being married to one of the priests (and therefore privy to what goes on behind the scenes and the attitude/feelings of the clergy regarding this issue) of one of the largest and most prominent parishes in the GOA. I do not say this to somehow boast, lest I be attacked for it, simply to emphasize that our parish is one of the leaders in the GOA, and that I think we are moving in the right direction. No, we won't be able to completely eliminate all aspects of Greek culture by tomorrow (not that the Liturgical language has ANYTHING to do with Greek culture, it doesn't), but we are moving toward a happy medium where "Greek Orthodox" describes only the liturgical tradition from which we descend and to which we ascribe (as opposed to the Russian, Antiochian, and other traditions), and not to an imposition of nationality in God's Church.

Instead of criticizing from our lofty places on high, how about if we all contribute positively and try to help the efforts by educating the faithful? This should always be our goal, not criticizing and ridiculing our fellow Orthodox and our hierarchs.

At present we (the Antiochians) are having hiearch problems which many are connecting to the EP. I've received word from three dioceses that the deaneries are trying to decipher the cryptic final reference. I might refrain from going through the Chief Secretary's speech during Lent, but since the seal is scheduled to be set during Bright Week, we don't have that luxury, if we want to stop Nektarios' "dream."

I apologize if I have shouted down your irenic voice.

And there is no reason to eliminate all aspects of Greek culture, tommorrow or ever.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 07:18:41 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If Metropolitan Alexios is so wonderful why didn'y he come down to Pensacola, Florida when we had a division in our parish which resulted in families leaving and starting an Antiochian parish. This little city cannot support two Orthoodx Churches. What also happened in naples with father Han's and what is happening in Panama City, Florida and Gainesvile,FloridaWhat would his All-Holiness think about this situation?

I don't want to get drawn into a nasty exchange during Lent (or ever, for that matter, but especially during Lent). But I think it's important to respond to the above, precisely because it is Lent and we should be praying rather than condemning. And because it is pertinent not only to the post above, but to most of the posts on this thread, and to the often prevailing sentiment of people toward their hierarchs in general.

So, I sincerely say this with love...

This is exactly what I was talking about. It is terribly tragic to see someone who holds anger and disdain for their bishop over a perceived slight (note that I say "perceived." I will explain below). I say to you what I say to everyone who ever complains about a bishop to me... have you prayed for him?

Furthermore, it often happens that people who have some details about a situation assume that they know all the details and are in a position to judge their hierarch for his perceived action/inaction (this is especially true of the EP- everyone loves to judge him based on the little information they have). I can tell you that, unless one works in one of three or four key positions in the Metropolis office, one doesn't know the whole situation in any of these cases. I say this with experience. These types of things are basically NEVER as they seem. There are always mitigating factors that the people don't know about. That is for good reason. Out of their love and mercy for both parish and priest, the bishops don't release the details of these types of situations. Why? Lay aside the fact that often the details are confessional. Despite our demands to know and our sinful feelings of entitlement, we don't NEED to know the details. And inevitably, knowing them only brings more hurt, more strife, and heightens emotions and sinfulness. Until we are privy to all of the details, we should give the benefit of the doubt and not condemn His Eminence +ALEXIOS or any other bishop. Even WITH all the details, none of us should be condemning hierarchs anyway. We should be praying for them. That's our job.

It saddens me to see these situations, and how the bishop is always the one blamed. It particularly saddens me in our Metropolis, as I have a great love and respect for Metropolitan +ALEXIOS. I may not agree with every decision he makes, but I always try to step back and remember that I don't have all the information, and even if I did, I'm not the bishop. He is. And my job as a lay person is to obey. That is not always easy when one is married to a priest in the bishop's charge. It often requires a lot of prayer and self-restraint to take that step back and remind oneself that our job is to obey, whether we like it our not. Even if he is wrong, he is human too, and has flaws, just like the rest of us. If he has made a mistake, we should, in Christian love, forgive him. Love keeps no record of wrongs, as the apostle tells us, correct? If we are holding a grudge, that is our sin. We should be loving and forgiving him. Besides, I certainly couldn't do his job better than him. I have neither the patience nor the spirtual discernment, the love or the compassion, the humility or the mercy that +ALEXIOS has. So, personally, I will be taking the plank out of my own eye before I try to remove the speck from his.

As for His All-Holiness' opinion of those situations, I couldn't begin to comment. I would imagine he is aware of them. But he, too, knows what his role is, and it is not to interfere in the day to day administrations of another bishop's parishes. When talking about following policies and goals (such as the usage of English), that is one thing, but to interfere in administration when it is unwarranted and unnecessary is something else.

Please forgive me if I am offending with my words. It is not my intent.

Pray for me a sinner,Presbytera Mari

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

I was going to return to reposting my critque of the Chief Secretary. But you're always a decent person, so I'd thought I'd move my reply to this first.

Thank you for your kind words, as always, Isa. Please pray for me...

Quote

I don't doubt your word or at least your viewpoint.

I do know others who have a different story to tell. There are enough elements, however, to help bolster your (meaning Greekchef's) case. For instance, I remember going to talk to the dean of the Greek Cathedral here on behalf of someone who had proposed to a Greek girl. The parents refused, because he wasn't Greek Orthodox, although he was preparing to convert, and even was learning Greek (which was more the shock: he is an "English only" type for everything). The priest said that he would marry them without any problem, and pulled out the registry and showed me how many mixed couples got married. Many converted, some did not. (this, of course, had come up about the number of mixed marriages, with the number of conversions of people who go on to be among the most active. Like your brother in law). He did tell me about a man that, because he wanted to marry a Jewess, that he would have to decide, if she didn't convert, between her and his heritage. Which of course was the proper line for the priest to draw.

So you were not forced to speak. I know some who had the experience. And myself, I've had the experience of basically "disappering" while speaking Greek, when I said I wasn't Greek.

I know others as well who have a different story. I have had these experiences occasionally as well. I have had a yiayia here or there dismiss me outright because my Greek "isn't good enough for a presbytera." Of course it happens. My point was just that these experiences do not represent the entire GOA and we should be big enough to look past one or two (or even ten or twenty) experiences like this to see the big picture. I know that's difficult sometimes, believe me. I have my days... But we should try, nonetheless.

Quote

Many of us worry less about GOA and more about the EP. I knew some missionaries who were at Holy Cross, when "the EP Troika" came, the one bishop exclaiming how proud he was to having brought Hellenism (one of the Chief Secretary's favorite words, it seems) to Australia. He said the Greek seminarians were as taken aback. This was in the aftermath of Archb. Iakovos of blessed memory's forced retirement, and I remember the discussions in the Greek Churches at the time, hearing things I never thought I'd hear Greeks say.

I can imagine they were taken aback! I would have been! Again, though, my point was that one priest or one bishop does not the entirety of the church make. So just because one person feels that way (even if it were the EP himself) doesn't mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. His All Holiness Bartholomew will not be the last ecumenical patriarch. But if we condemn the Patriarchate (the office) for his actions and opinions and remove him from the diptychs or lower the See of Constantinople because we don't like him, then the damage we will have done will be terrible and probably irreparable (at least for our souls-- these things are not to be taken lightly).

Quote

At present we (the Antiochians) are having hiearch problems which many are connecting to the EP. I've received word from three dioceses that the deaneries are trying to decipher the cryptic final reference. I might refrain from going through the Chief Secretary's speech during Lent, but since the seal is scheduled to be set during Bright Week, we don't have that luxury, if we want to stop Nektarios' "dream."

I'm afraid I'm not clear on what your talking about (I'm not up on all my cross-jurisdiction church situations and the politics behind thema). If you get a minute, feel free to PM me and fill me in. I'd be interested to know.

Quote

I apologize if I have shouted down your irenic voice.

No apologies necessary. Having different opinions doesn't mean there can't be peace. It's not the difference of opinion that is the problem, it's the condemnation, judgment, accusations, allegations, and all around negativity that seem to come with different opinions around here (that's not directed at you-- your post is anything but negative. Thank you for that).

Quote

And there is no reason to eliminate all aspects of Greek culture, tommorrow or ever.

I'm glad to hear (*read*) that, and do appreciate it. It does get rather daunting and hurtful to read the things people say on here about the EP, other bishops, the GOA, and Greeks. It's exhausting sometimes...

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

Even us under the EP have a long way to go until the dream of a pan-Orthodox jurisdiction under the omniphoron of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is reached.

It's a good first step, and generally one not acknowledged by the EP = Evil crowd.

What does Metropolitan Alexios have to do with this thread (addressing a different post)? Do people imagine there is a single jurisdiction anywhere in this country without major pastoral issues somewhere?

If Metropolitan Alexios is so wonderful why didn'y he come down to Pensacola, Florida when we had a division in our parish which resulted in families leaving and starting an Antiochian parish. This little city cannot support two Orthoodx Churches. What also happened in naples with father Han's and what is happening in Panama City, Florida and Gainesvile,FloridaWhat would his All-Holiness think about this situation?

Oh, you're from Pensacola. We can talk about this one via PM if you wish - truly a tragic situation.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

...our parish is one of the leaders in the GOA, and that I think we are moving in the right direction. No, we won't be able to completely eliminate all aspects of Greek culture by tomorrow (not that the Liturgical language has ANYTHING to do with Greek culture, it doesn't), but we are moving toward a happy medium where "Greek Orthodox" describes only the liturgical tradition from which we descend and to which we ascribe (as opposed to the Russian, Antiochian, and other traditions), and not to an imposition of nationality in God's Church.

Dear Presvytera Mari (sp?), thank you for this most kind, balanced and forward looking input. The GOA can indeed be, not only the most numerous and prosperous of all Eparchies of the Patriarchate, but also the most enlightened one.

Quote

Instead of criticizing from our lofty places on high, how about if we all contribute positively and try to help the efforts by educating the faithful? This should always be our goal, not criticizing and ridiculing our fellow Orthodox and our hierarchs.

As one of those who criticized the unfortunate presentation by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate, I must admit that I was incensed at his allegations and my language and tone certainly must have reflected my emotions. I apologize for this as it was not conducive to proper discourse. However, there are many important issues that must be discussed.

One of the major arguments that the Patriarchate has been using to justify its claim to universal primacy is its stance that it has never forced anybody to be Hellenized or to become Greek. Indeed, there is some current evidence that the Patriarchate is embracing geographically and ethnically disparate subordinate churches without any requirement for their Hellenization (Ozgeorge actually listed a number of them in a recent posting).

The problem for me was the Chief Secretary's claim that "...(the Patriarchate) never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is not true for the treatment given to the Bulgarian nation. The Patriarchate over the centuries disregarded the desire of the Bulgarian people to use their own language and clergy. I don't know what the Chief Secretary's definition of Hellenism is but, whatever the motivation, the denial of Bulgarian language and culture when the only other alternative is Greek must mean something. If this is not what the Chief Secretary meant, then I apologize to him. Nonetheless it does not change history and the plain meaning of language.

On the Week of the Cross His All Holiness Patriarch Kyrill sends a letter to His Beatitude Jonah, Metropolitan of All America and Canada

On 22 March, 2009 during the Week of the Cross His Beatitude Jonah, Metropolitan of All America and Canada served Divine Liturgy at the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York (Moscow Patriarchate) with the blessing of His All Holiness Kyrill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and at the invitation of the Administrator of the Patriarchal Parishes in the USA Bishop Merkurii, Bishop of Zaraisk. The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church sent a letter of greeting to His Beatitude Jonah, Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada which was proclaimed upon completing the Divine Liturgy. The complete text of His All Holiness Kyrill, Patriarch of Mocow can be found below.

Your Beatitude!

I sincerely welcome your visit to the St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Moscow Patriarchate in the city of New York, this memorable and holy place connected with the life and service of St. Tikhon.

Your first visit as head of the Orthodox Church in America to the Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the USA and to a parish of the Russian Orthodox Church comes during the week of the Cross, when the Honorable Cross stands before us for reverential worship and adoration. May the *invincible and inscrutable power of the honorable and life-giving Cross* strengthen the love between our Churches and overcome the *demons of feeble impertinence.*

Having passed over the course of Great Lent in peace, I wish you a joyous Pascha. I await the upcoming visit of Your Beatitude in Moscow.

Cleveland..I PMed you using the message system on here..Your AOL mail is not activated..I'd like to get more views concerning our situation here...Im sure there is enough blame to go around but its very sad..families are torn apart and as I said earlier this small town cannot support two Orthodox parishes..

...our parish is one of the leaders in the GOA, and that I think we are moving in the right direction. No, we won't be able to completely eliminate all aspects of Greek culture by tomorrow (not that the Liturgical language has ANYTHING to do with Greek culture, it doesn't), but we are moving toward a happy medium where "Greek Orthodox" describes only the liturgical tradition from which we descend and to which we ascribe (as opposed to the Russian, Antiochian, and other traditions), and not to an imposition of nationality in God's Church.

Dear Presvytera Mari (sp?), thank you for this most kind, balanced and forward looking input. The GOA can indeed be, not only the most numerous and prosperous of all Eparchies of the Patriarchate, but also the most enlightened one.

Quote

Instead of criticizing from our lofty places on high, how about if we all contribute positively and try to help the efforts by educating the faithful? This should always be our goal, not criticizing and ridiculing our fellow Orthodox and our hierarchs.

I understand the idea behind this, and to a degree, I agree with you. But I firmly believe that criticism must be done only when one has all the facts. Further, criticism should be done in truth and love, not with anger, disrespect, and disdain (that's not directed at you, it's just a generality). We should attempt to set our biases aside, our personal experiences that have colored our judgment aside and criticize such that it is in the best interests of the people AND the hierarch.

Quote

As one of those who criticized the unfortunate presentation by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate, I must admit that I was incensed at his allegations and my language and tone certainly must have reflected my emotions. I apologize for this as it was not conducive to proper discourse. However, there are many important issues that must be discussed.

Please don't apologize to me. I'm not the forum police. You owe me no apologies. I know that this is an emotional topic for many of us, myself included.

Quote

One of the major arguments that the Patriarchate has been using to justify its claim to universal primacy is its stance that it has never forced anybody to be Hellenized or to become Greek. Indeed, there is some current evidence that the Patriarchate is embracing geographically and ethnically disparate subordinate churches without any requirement for their Hellenization (Ozgeorge actually listed a number of them in a recent posting).

The problem for me was the Chief Secretary's claim that "...(the Patriarchate) never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is not true for the treatment given to the Bulgarian nation. The Patriarchate over the centuries disregarded the desire of the Bulgarian people to use their own language and clergy. I don't know what the Chief Secretary's definition of Hellenism is but, whatever the motivation, the denial of Bulgarian language and culture when the only other alternative is Greek must mean something. If this is not what the Chief Secretary meant, then I apologize to him. Nonetheless it does not change history and the plain meaning of language.

I wish I knew enough about the history of which you speak, but unfortunately I don't know enough to comment. IMHO, though, again, we should be careful about criticizing the hierarchy when we don't have all the facts and don't know what mitigating circumstances there may have been. I'm not saying we should never criticize, for I agree there are times when that is appropriate and necessary. I'm not sure I have the discernment needed to make the distinction of when those times are. I think, though, that the appropriate times are situations when we are intimately involved and knowledgeable of all the details (such as being the parent of a victim of a corrupt priest), not when we make judgments from afar without knowing anything but what the press and history books tell us. My "qualifier," I guess you could say, would be that question: do I know ALL the facts? After that would be: am I being critical out of anger, disdain, pride, and sinfulness? Can I stand back and look at the situation with an open heart, discernment, humility, and prayer?

As I said before, the Chief Secretary's delivery was a bit blunt, and maybe not so diplomatic, but for the most part, I agree with him in what he said.

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

A response to "Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. ElpidophorosLambriniadis: Challenges of Orthodoxy in America And the Role of theEcumenical Patriarchate, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod,Chapel of the Holy Cross, March 16, 2009", By Harry Coin

I feel compelled to offer some extended responses interposed in the textof the archimandrite's speech. The reason I write this is that I thinknot only survival, but growth for all the Orthodox of whatever ancestralorigin is important -- and not as a cult with obscurantist rules amidcovered up sexual and financial shenanigans among the leaders, but as atransparent and worthwhile example of how to struggle ever upward andonward.

At present we (the Antiochians) are having hiearch problems which many are connecting to the EP. I've received word from three dioceses that the deaneries are trying to decipher the cryptic final reference. I might refrain from going through the Chief Secretary's speech during Lent, but since the seal is scheduled to be set during Bright Week, we don't have that luxury, if we want to stop Nektarios' "dream."

I'm afraid I'm not clear on what your talking about (I'm not up on all my cross-jurisdiction church situations and the politics behind thema). If you get a minute, feel free to PM me and fill me in. I'd be interested to know.

Out of respect for you and GI Day, and to honor St. Gregory V of Constantinople, I didn't post yesterday on this thread. Just in case I might talk out of season.

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Now, not that we think that we are big potatoes or that, but just pawns in the show down between the EP and the PoM in this Great Synod that the EP is pushing for, and the Chief Secretary underlined. It is harder for the EP to make his "28 canon" argument as long as Antioch, an older Patriarchate that owes nothing of her to existence to either Constantinople nor the Ecumenical Councils, has an Archdiocese here, with deeper and MORE CANONICAL roots, and autonomy.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 03:15:36 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Who would pay for such a sale, and what kind of payment would be made?

You have, my brothers and sisters, the privilege to be citizens of a country which determines to a great extent the fate of many people on our planet

With all the quibbling about how much the GOA versus the CoG is responsible for the upkeep of the EP (and Alexandria and Jerusalem. On a more positive note, the GoC does a LOT for the Church in Albania (and not just for the Greeks there) and at least in Romania in the former Soviet Block), this goes to the heart of the matter. Whether, in the terms of politics, the EP survives in Constantinople depends on whether the Orthodox can pressure the U.S. and the E.U. to pressure the Turk to allow it. Moscow possesses its pressures, but the issue differs there.Btw, during the Soviet period, Antioch received aid from the PoM (allowed under the guise of Soviet Diplomacy). I don't know if this has dropped, as the needs of Russia have increased since liberation from the Bolshevik yoke. And I don't know how much U.S.-Syrian relations put a strain on support from the Archdiocese here to Antioch. Something to consider, in view of the recent "changes," and how the Chief Secretary's little parley plays in this.

Quote

a country where pioneering technologies as well as ideas and philosophies have been discovered and disseminated. The cultural peculiarities and characteristics of the United States find also a reflection in, as it is only natural, and exercise an influence on the religious communities of this country. It is far from accidental that none of the “traditional” religions (coming either from Europe or elsewhere), remained the same once they were replanted on American soil.

The configuration of the Church and of the Faith didn’t remain the same when it was transplanted from Jerusalem into the soil of the Greco-Roman world, nor when the Roman Emperor converted, nor when Constantinople rose, nor when she fell, nor when Greece (and the CoG) achieved independence from Constantinople/Istanbul: certainly not after Greece was integrated into the EU. How does the United States differ from Constantinople or Greece in this principle?

Quote

The same change can be of course observed in the case of Orthodoxy, whose appearance and development in America was influenced by certain indeterminable factors.

Among those “certain indeterminable factors,” does he count the Bolshevik revolution and the havoc it wrought on the Metropolia of North America, and the EP’s eagerness to capitalize on it?See below.

Quote

The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora.

No. America, from an administrative and technical point, was an Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Church, spreading from the part of the Russian Empire in America. American Orthodoxy developed because the Russian colonial authorities visited Valaam Monastery and requested that missionaries come to the colonies, and founded what became the Metropolia of North America, an Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Moscow. It turned out to be a mistake on the part of the colonial authorities, because the monks protested the treatment of the natives, and complained to the Czar, to the point that the colonial authorities forbade contact between the natives and the monks.The monks, however, went on and converted the natives. As the Librarian of Congress records, in the Congressional Record (91st Cong. Vol. 116, No. 133 Aug. 4, 1970):

Quote

The mission (8 monks and deacons, headed by the Archmandirite Joseph (who was later drowned [Joasphat drowned in 1799, when he was returning from being ordained as the first bishop of the See of Kodiak, AK, the Holy Synod creating the auxiliary diocese for him and, in their election of him, directed the Bishop of Irkutsk in Siberia to ordain him alone, the only known record of the Russian practicing the economy of ordination by one bishop, used only in dire situations, indicating the importance they placed on the Alaskan mission]) landed at St. Paul's Harbor, Kodiak in September of 1794. Within a year, over 7,000 native Americans had been baptized, mostly Aleuts. Conflicts developed with the Russian-American Trading Company...over the treatment of the Alaskan natives, whose rights the missionaries upheld. In 1800 [the colonial administration] placed the members of the mission under house arrest and forbade contact with the natives. The following year, the missionaries administered the oath of allegiance to the Czar to the natives in an attempt to extend imperial protection over them....Father Herman represents the flowering of Russian monastic spirituality in America. The survival of Orthodoxy in Alaska has been attributed to the zeal of the first missionaries and of their native converts, the absence of racism in the Russian mission and its leaders and such contemporary elements as the use of the vernacular (in the liturgy), the cultivation of a self-relient Church, and an indigenous (native) clergy. The Russian American mission derived much of its strength from the leadership of the first Archbishop of Moscow, founder of the Orthodox Missionary Society, and one of the greatest figures Russian Church history-and the father of Alaskan anthropology. It was [Met. St. Innocent] Veniaminov who firmly established the policy of protecting native tribal rights and who introduced both Aleut and Tlinglit into the liturgy [and had served the Diocese of Alaska as across the Aleutians and down into San Francisco, before assuming the see of Moscow]. However the influence of a life such as that of [St.] Father Herman cannot be underestimating in explaining the ardent faith of the natives whose religious traditions have survived to this day, despite many trials.

[the record also records accurately that St. Herman was the first glorification of any saint on North American soil].

Among those trials was the Czar selling his American possessions to the U.S. on October 7/18, 1867. Although the treaties contained guarentees on "that the churches which have been built...shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church...as may chose to worship therein," and full citizenship for the Russians who stayed, these promises were not kept. The U.S. also excepted the "uncivilized native tribes" (not specifying what of "civilized" tribes, as the Orthodox ones were literate, thanks to the missionaries. In fact, St. Innocent wrote his "The Indication of the Pathway into the Kindgom of Heaven" in Aleut, and then translated it into Russia when he assumed the See of Moscow, whence it became a Russian Classic. Similar material intended for the Alaskans and in their languages ended up in the Russian Church).http://www.asna.ca/alaska/

...is replete with distortions and fabrications...That the clergy were were inciting the Natives to assert their freedom and that the company insisted that they obey Baranov's [the governor] indicates where the real issues lay. Hieromonk Iuvenalii traveled alone and unarmed, so that it was beyond his personal strength to force anyone to submit to baptism. Two centuries after his visit the villages he baptized have remained overwhelmingly loyal to Orthodoxy. The historical evidence substantiates the monks', not the company's account. Had the Kenai, Chugach or Iliamna people been forced to accept Christianity, they would have abandoned it as soon as the missionaries left town. Instead, they have remained steadfast in their allegience, not to any earthly tsar, but to the King of Kings and His Church. The martyr St. Juvenaly did his work well.

The Russians lost their homes and either returned to Russia, or joined the Russians in San Francisco. The Congress then split Alaska into 10 districts, and gave each district to a Protestant denomination to "educate." Congress erected a statue in Sitka (the See of the Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska of the Russian Church) of Dr. Sheldon Jackson, dedicated to him as "the first Christian missionary in Alaska," who came in 1877 (i.e. nearly a century after St. Herman) to oversee this. (the museum in his honor, again in Sitka, houses his collection of the cultures that he engaged in obliterating). His aide in this, the Tsimshian Rev. Edward Marsden (the "first Alaskan Native to be ordained in the ministry" in 1898, i.e. 73 years after St. Fr. Jacob Netsetov, the first Aleut Orthodox priest was ordained) tried to convert the Tlingit, who converted to Orthodoxy as a nation AFTER the Russians left. In fact, in 1897 "the Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs" petitioned the U.S. President

Quote

The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S.

In the district given to the Luterans, someone hit on the idea of getting Sami (then Lapps) from Scandinavia to settle in Alaska with their reindeer. The Sami men would marry the Alaskan women and make them good Lutherans, and the reindeer would give them a livelihood. The Sami did marry, but these Orthodox wives converted their husbands, leaving an Orthodox population which has Nordic surnames, Sami y chromosones, and Amerindian faces. The reindeer ran off with a herd of caribou, and were never seen again.

Of course, the real irony is that these Sami came from the neighborhood of Valaam, the Monastery from which came St. Herman to enlighten America, and the Sami as far as Njávdán/Neiden Norway had embraced Orthodoxy:

Quote

St.Georgs chapel was built in 1565. It is by the Neiden river, not far from the road. A legend says that the holy Trifon baptized the Sámi people in the river, and after that the water in the Neiden river was considered holy. Every year in the last weekend of august there is a orthodoxy ceremony at the chapel and the holy water is a part of the ceremony.

A large graveyard surrounds the chapel. According to tradition, there is holy water in a pool in the river above the waterfall. This water was used for purification and baptisms. It is believed that the chapel was consecrated on the 24th of June 1565, as the chapel for the Eastern Sámi 'siida' in Neiden. (A 'siida' was the fundamental unit of the traditional Sámi society, indicating both the occupied area and the family group(s) making use of it.) The Russian Orthodox faith became the religion practiced by the Eastern Sámi, subsequent to the influence of the monk Trifon and the monastery in Petchenga.

Neiden, located in the municipality of Sør-Varanger, historically has been a seasonal settlement for the Skolt Sámi. According to written sources, the Skolts have been influenced by evangelising since the middle of the 16th century. The missionaries were sent from Russian monasteries. The present chapel is Norway's smallest sacred building and it houses 16 Russian icon panels. Each panel is at least 100 years old. As Sámi cultural monuments, both the chapel and the icons are automatically protected under the Cultural Heritage Act.

God preserve the Indigenous Nations, multiply them and number them among the Great Commission!

This region was evangelized when the Met. of Moscow became the Patriarch of Moscow, All the Russias and Northern Lands." Or was Constantinople in charge of the souls of these "Barbarians?"

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 05:04:51 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Who would pay for such a sale, and what kind of payment would be made?

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 05:03:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Who would pay for such a sale, and what kind of payment would be made?

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

I doubt Greeks, real ones in Hellas, want to pay for that.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

If such a thing were to happen, would the Antiochian Archdiocese remain as a distinct entity like ACROD, or would it simply be combined with the GOA since both share, at least in theory, a common liturgical tradition?

Two of mine have appeared in this thread in the last 15 minutres and now they have disappeared!

Not recently, but as I said, a whole post disappeared that I'm trying to reconstruct now.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Who would pay for such a sale, and what kind of payment would be made?

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

I doubt Greeks, real ones in Hellas, want to pay for that.

As is often pointed out here, those in the "New Lands" are under the EP.

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

If such a thing were to happen, would the Antiochian Archdiocese remain as a distinct entity like ACROD, or would it simply be combined with the GOA since both share, at least in theory, a common liturgical tradition?

You'll have to ask others: my job is make sure we don't find out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Alaska didn't become a US State until 1959 when the GOA was already entrenched in the USA.

Since the District of Alaska lasted from 1867 to 1959, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's eyes, Alaska was seen as barbarian lands (just like the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, et al.); Hence, after 1867, the Russians no longer existed in Alaska which meant that the Russian Orthodox Church no longer existed in American territory.

California was admitted to the US in 1850; 17 years before Seward's Folly. The Russian Orthodox were already on US soil. 54 years after Alaska was purchased, this knowledge was used to justify the Pat. Meletios' grab of the entire North American Continent, later divided into 4 Metropolitanates and later subdivided into 8 sub-Metropolitanates.

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Who would pay for such a sale, and what kind of payment would be made?

The CoG, similar to ones the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem have received.

I doubt Greeks, real ones in Hellas, want to pay for that.

As is often pointed out here, those in the "New Lands" are under the EP.

If such a thing were to happen, would the Antiochian Archdiocese remain as a distinct entity like ACROD, or would it simply be combined with the GOA since both share, at least in theory, a common liturgical tradition?

You'll have to ask others: my job is make sure we don't find out.

We are share the same goal then.

But I really think these rumours are nothing more than just that- rumours.Firstly, how does one "sell" an Archdiocese? What is one selling? The Church property? That I can accept as a possibility, but to sell an "Archdiocese" is impossible. What are you selling when you put an Archdiocese "up for sale"? the Goodwill of the business? The Bishops?, the Clergy? the Faithful?At any rate, no one in their right mind would "buy" an Archdiocese in the hope that the Faithful of it will continue to give their money to the new overlords- it's just not good investment, particularly in this case.Secondly, who in their right mind would take on the current problems in the Archdiocese- and pay for the privilege of doing so? It's laughable!

I really think you have nothing to fear in this regard.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 07:42:39 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Alaska didn't become a US State until 1959 when the GOA was already entrenched in the USA.

Since the District of Alaska lasted from 1867 to 1959, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's eyes, Alaska was seen as barbarian lands (just like the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, et al.); Hence, after 1867, the Russians no longer existed in Alaska which meant that the Russian Orthodox Church no longer existed in American territory.

California was admitted to the US in 1850; 17 years before Seward's Folly. The Russian Orthodox were already on US soil. 54 years after Alaska was purchased, this knowledge was used to justify the Pat. Meletios' grab of the entire North American Continent, later divided into 4 Metropolitanates and later subdivided into 8 sub-Metropolitanates.

Wow, Isa's posts are simply enlightening.

I'll be answering this set of questions next, but all in good time.

In the meantime, I just came across this, with the imprematur of the EP's friend, the "protos" of Old Rome.

Quote

According to reliable records, the first formal act of Christian worship in what is today the State of Alaska took place on Ascension Thursday, May 13 1779, when the Franciscan priest Juan Riobo-a member of a Spanish exploratory expedition sailing out of San Blas, Mexico-celebrated Mass near present-day Craig in southeastern Alaska. Alaska remained, in terms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, a "no-man's land" until 1847, when Modest Demers was consecrated the first bishop of Vancouver Island, Canada, and given jurisdiction "over the island of that name and all British and Russian possesssions as far north as 'the glacial sea'"

Although the article "Alaska" fills over 4 pages, the Russian Orthodox are not mentioned ONCE in it. No, this is not the old "Catholic Encyclopedia," but the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" (2003, vol. 1, p. 207). You know, the one post Vatican II when were stopped being "schismatics."

The old one (1907) at least give an, although biased, account of the Orthodox in Alaska:

Quote

....In 1823 Ivan Veniaminof, the most distinguished of the Russian ecclesiastics in Alaska, known as the "Enlightener of the Aleuts", arrived in Unalaska. During his career of nearly thirty years, he displayed intense zeal. He was instrumental in spreading Christianity over a vast extent of territory, visiting not only the Aleutian Islands, but all the coast of the mainland from Bristol Bay to the Kuskokwim. Veniaminof was a man of exceptional ability. He mastered the Aleut and Thlinket languages, translated portions of the New Testament, composed a catechism and hymnal, and began an exhaustive research into the traditions, beliefs, superstitions, etc. of the nations of the Aleutian group. In 1840, after the division of the diocese of Irkutsk, he was consecrated Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands, and assumed, after the Russian custom, the name of Innocentius. During his sojourn in southeastern Alaska, he devoted himself with great zeal to the conversion of the Thlinkets. He established at Sitka a seminary for the training of natives and half-breeds for the priesthood, an institution that was maintained for many years. In 1852, he was transferred to Yakutsk, and died in 1879, Metropolitan of Moscow. Veniaminof, of whom there exists a biography, is highly venerated as a man and a writer. Petroff says of him, however, that the success of his work of conversion was only temporary and was confined altogether to the time of his presence among the natives....Parochial schools are attached to every Russian church. The Report on Education for 1903 (2352-53) enumerates in Alaska thirty schools, with 740 pupils, and adds that there are sixteen parishes in Alaska with 10,225 parishioners. The Czar still maintains a salaried hierarchy there, but his influence is destined to dwindle away before American missionary endeavors...The Presbyterians, who landed in that country in 1878, have been the most successful. They have strongly organized missions in southeastern Alaska. The late Governor of the territory, John B. Brady, was a Presbyterian missionary for years; and the Rev. Sheldon Jackson, another Presbyterian missionary, is Superintendent of education for the territory....

The Russian Orthodox church in Alaska is claiming a resurgence in a faith that most people predicted would die out. When Russia sold Alaska to America for $7.2m in 1867 it left little trace on the state - except its religion.

"For me it's a wonderful place to be. After Perestroika there is a resurrection of religion in Russia and every church and every chapel there has an icon of St Herman of Alaska," says Alexander Vankov, a Russian pilgrim from St Petersburg.

Nuns and monks here follow the traditions of St Herman - living a life of prayer in this remote outpost with no electricity or running water.

From their nearby island monastery nuns kayak in to Spruce Island to celebrate the pilgrimage.

And it's in the native Alaskan villages where that faith is still strongest. Travel half an hour by boat down the coast and you get to Ouzinkie - you can only reach it by sea.

Here more than two centuries ago locals embraced a church which protected them against the tyranny of the Russian fur traders.

"We were born not knowing that there was any other. We live in a remote, remote village and the only thing was Orthodox... and we've kept it," says 67-year-old Tania Chichenoff.

"I have eight children and 36 grandchildren and they've all been baptised Orthodox."

Tania, like many native Alaskans from this area, has a Russian surname. Many of the Russians intermarried with natives.

"Very few Russian women came to Alaska. Russians had no prejudices against peoples with Asiatic appearances, so marriage with a native woman - that was nothing out of the ordinary," says local historian Dr Lydia Black."

Despite the arrival of Protestant missionaries after Alaska became American, the onion domes of Orthodox churches can still be seen across most Alaskan towns.

In Alaska's main city, Anchorage, the finishing touches are being put on a new cathedral. The church says it needs more space because of growing congregations.

"At the sale of Alaska, everyone thought that orthodoxy would disappear because all the Russians left. Actually quite the contrary has happened - we are now the largest church in Alaska," says Bishop Nikolai, the Russian Orthodox bishop of Alaska.

The Russian Orthodox church now says it has 49 parishes in Alaska and up to 50,000 followers here. Despite the radical changes wrought by Americans, the deep impression of Russian Orthodoxy remains to this day in Alaska.

Btw, "According to reliable records, the first formal act of Christian worship in what is today the State of Alaska took place" On July 20, 1741, which was the feast day of St Elias. Hieromonk Illarion Trusov, assisted by priest Ignaty Kozirevsky, celebrated a liturgy in thanks for their success of the Bering expedition, at the St. Elias Mountains. This was the first Orthodox Liturgy held in the western hemisphere. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alaska

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 09:03:18 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What's clear to me in all of this is unity is moving backwards. There would be unity tomorrow if people wanted it, but the fact is they don't. Who settled Alaska when, etc., etc., etc. Blah, Blah, Blah.

I read today the Sunday of Orthodoxy services in Boston were cancelled because the GOA and OCA are in a spat. That seems just as childish as all this.

What's clear to me in all of this is unity is moving backwards. There would be unity tomorrow if people wanted it, but the fact is they don't. Who settled Alaska when, etc., etc., etc. Blah, Blah, Blah.

I read today the Sunday of Orthodoxy services in Boston were cancelled because the GOA and OCA are in a spat. That seems just as childish as all this.

The Russians are known throughout history as a xenophobic people; Yet, they evangelized the Aleuts, Inuits and others while the "subjects" of the Byzantine Empire either ratted each other out to Ottoman officials, wound up in harems, disfigured themselves to prevent from winding up in the harem, engaged in guerilla warfare,... (one gets the picture). As a consequence of the Enlightenment, the Greeks rediscovered Hellenism (which the Phanariotes and other ex-Byzantine elites had discovered a few centuries earlier after fleeing Constantinople in 1453). As a consequence of the Enlightenment, the Russians rediscovered barbarism and nihilism at the cost of tens (if not hundreds) of millions dead. As the consequence of the Enlightenment, the Arabs (Christian and Muslim alike) were manipulated by the western powers until Israel was created in a blink of an eye.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius may have evangelized the Slavs; However, what is now Czech Republic and Slovakia were never part of the Byzantine Empire.

Would anything be different if the Russians had landed on Plymouth Rock and evangelized the Indians they encountered?

Revisionist history is quite popular according to the What If series. Unfortunately, Christ is the forgotten one in Enlightenment and other isms mentioned above.

As a consequence of the Enlightenment, the Russians rediscovered barbarism and nihilism at the cost of tens (if not hundreds) of millions dead. As the consequence of the Enlightenment, the Arabs (Christian and Muslim alike) were manipulated by the western powers until Israel was created in a blink of an eye.

Dear SolEX01,

Something pertinent and so sorrowful that it moves us to tears and to prayers.

In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust

Alaska didn't become a US State until 1959 when the GOA was already entrenched in the USA.

California was admitted to the US in 1850; 17 years before Seward's Folly. The Russian Orthodox were already on US soil. 54 years after Alaska was purchased, this knowledge was used to justify the Pat. Meletios' grab of the entire North American Continent, later divided into 4 Metropolitanates and later subdivided into 8 sub-Metropolitanates.

In the meantime, I just came across this, with the imprematur of the EP's friend, the "protos" of Old Rome.

Although the article "Alaska" fills over 4 pages, the Russian Orthodox are not mentioned ONCE in it. No, this is not the old "Catholic Encyclopedia," but the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" (2003, vol. 1, p. 207). You know, the one post Vatican II when were stopped being "schismatics."

The disinformation of the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" does serve a purpose to hightlight that Spain and Russia, knowing of each other's activities and in competition, once met in San Francisco, with consequences for Orthodoxy.

That started with the Pomori ("on the sea" i.e. maritime) who colonized the White Sea region from Novgorod, and spread out along the North Sea Route from Archangel (remember, Sitka, the capital of Russian American, was named "New Archangel" when she received her bishop) across Siberia. In the interior, Russian monks saw Siberia as a "Northern Desert," and would go out as hermits. Hermits would lead to monasteries, monasteries to communities, communities to cities, and new hermits would go out from the cities further East to start the whole process again. Ut would seem this is why the Council which elevated Moscow to a Patriarchate gave him jurisdiction over "Moscow and All the Russias, and the Northern Lands." What would go on to become the episcopacy of North America had started out as the Orthodox mission to China.

Quote

Hourg and Barsanuphii, journeyed east to Kazan, capital of the Tartars, learned the Tartar language, and established a monastic community for the conversion of the Mongol peoples. St Stephen of Perm (1340-96), another monk, would in turn journey beyond Kazan, across the Ural mountain, into the forests of Siberia to labor among the pagan Zyrians. There Stephen devised a Zyrian alphabet, translated the Gospel, and subsequently converted an entire people. This model of monastic evangelization became the pattern for other Russian Orthodox missionaries as they trekked ever eastward, eventually establishing a network of missions across Siberia and along the entire Pacific Rim.

In 1648, the Russian explorer Simeon Dezhnev sailed from the Arctic Ocean, around the Chukotka Peninsula, and founded the post of Anadyr on the Bering Sea, facing Alaska. During the next several generations, Siberian entrepreneurs ventured across the straits to engage native Americans in commerce. Rumors of these early permanent Russian settlements on Alaskan soil during this period persist among Alaskan native peoples today. Whether permanent or occasional residents, these Russian frontiersmen brought with them not only beads, blankets, pots and pans, but their religious traditions as well. Orthodox laity brought the Orthodox faith to North America, baptized the first converts (often their own native wives and Creole offspring), and even constructed the first chapels. Clergy and official missionaries came much later.

Russian traders and trappers would make annual or biannual trading expeditions to the Aleutian Archipelago in search of valuable sea otter pelts. Poorly equipped, these Siberian entrepreneurs were not seasoned military men, but frontier adventurers, much like Daniel Boone. Unlike Boone, though, these adventurers were bachelors. Inevitably they married local women who provided their Siberian husbands with the same clothing, tools, and food they would have given native Alaskan spouses. Thus, when the British Captain James Cook visited the Aleutian Islands at the end of the century (1793), he could not distinguish the Slavs from the native Alaskans. The Siberians had been completely acculturated into the material culture of the Aleuts.

In the 1780’s a Russian trader, Gregory Shelikov, argued that sending annual trading expeditions to the New World across the Bering Strait was unnecessarily expensive and dangerous. The time had come, he argued, for the establishment of permanent trading posts in Alaska. The importation of a few hundred Russian settlers, Shelikov reasoned, could lead to the systematic exploitation of the sea otter habitats all along the Alaskan coast -- and vast profits. As the natives might not be receptive to such a colonial intrusion, Shelikov suggested that the commercial adventure assume a military dimension as well. A Russian settlement in Alaska, atop the North Pacific, would extend Russian political and military influence as far as Spanish California, British Hawaii, and the Spanish Philippines. In the summer of 1784, Shelikov set out for Kodiak Island to establish his Alaskan base. By all accounts except his own, Shelikov’s expedition was greeted with hostility and armed resistance. Subduing the Kodiak islanders in a bloody encounter, Shelikov returned to St Petersburg to relate his conquest and present a request for a monopoly on the ensuing fur trade to the imperial court. He installed Alexander Baranov as company manager, governor, and virtual dictator of the small Russian colony. Shelikov did not live to see his Russian-American Trading Company receive its monopoly, nor did he ever return to Alaska. Baranov, however was to rule both the colony and the company with an iron fist for 27 years. To convince the imperial court of the seriousness of his colonial scheme, Shelikov journeyed to Valaam and Konevitsa monasteries, located on the Russo-Finnish border, to recruit monastic volunteers for the new settlement in Alaska. One Archimandrite, three priestmonks, one deacon-monk, one lay monk, together with several staff members, left St Petersburg on December 21, 1793. They arrived in Kodiak on September 24, 1794, having travelled 7,300 miles in 293 days.

In 1791, he joined the staff of Gavrila Derzhavin in his capacity as the private secretary to the Empress. Several years earlier, meeting Grigory Shelikhov, of the Shelikhov-Golikov Fur Company, Rezanov became interested in the merchant's project to obtain a monopoly of the fur trade in those distant dependencies. Conscious of latent energies, and already tired of the pleasures of a dissolute court, he became a partner in the company, and rapidly developed into a keen and tireless man of business. At the death of Shelikhov in 1795, he became the leading spirit of the wealthy and amalgamated but harassed companies, and resolved to obtain for himself and his partners privileges analogous to those granted by Great Britain to the East India Company.

He had just succeeded in persuading Catherine II to sign his charter when she died, and he was obliged to begin again with the ill-balanced and intractable Emperor Paul. For a time the outlook was hopeless, but Rezanov's skill, subtlety and address prevailed, and shortly before the assassination of Paul he obtained his signature to the momentous instrument which granted to the Russian-American Company, for a term of twenty years, dominion over the Pacific Northwest coast of North America, from latitude 55 degrees northward; and over the chain of islands extending from Kamchatka northward to Alaska and southward to Japan.

This famous "Trust," which crowded out all the small companies and independent traders, was a source of large revenue to Rezanov and the other shareholders, including members of the Imperial family.

He participated in the first Russian circumnavigation of the globe (1803), commanding the expedition himself as far as Kamchatka, in 1805, and found commands awaiting him to remain in the Russian colonies as Imperial inspector and plenipotentiary of the company, and to correct the abuses that were ruining the great enterprise. He traveled slowly to New Archangel (Sitka) by way of the islands, establishing measures to protect the fur-bearing animals from reckless slaughter, punishing or banishing the worst offenders against the company's laws, and introducing the civilizing influence of schools and libraries, most of the books being his personal gifts. He even established cooking schools, which flourished briefly.

At the end of a winter in New Archangel (Sitka), the headquarters of the company (during which he nearly starved with the others) Rezanov bought a ship from a Yankee skipper {John DeWolf} and sailed for the Spanish settlements in California, proposing to trade his tempting cargo of American and Russian wares for food-stuffs, and to arrange a treaty by whose terms his colonies should be provisioned twice a year with the bountiful products of New Spain. He cast anchor in the harbor of San Francisco early in April 1806, after a stormy voyage which had defeated his intention to take possession of the Columbia River in the name of Russia.

Although he was received with great courtesy and entertained night and day by the Californians, no time was lost in informing him that the laws of Spain forbade her colonies to trade with foreign powers. He however caught the eye of María Concepción Argüello, the daughter of Spain's governor for Upper California of the viceroyalty of New Spain, born at the Presidio of San Francisco. As it was, when he sailed for New Archangel six weeks after his arrival, the Juno's hold was full of bread-stuffs and dried meats, he had the promise of the perplexed governor to forward a copy of the treaty to Spain at once, and he was affianced to the most beautiful girl in California. The treaty was to Shortly after his arrival in New Archangel, he proceeded by water to Kamchatka, where he dispatched his ships to wrest the island Sakhalin of the lower Kuril group from Japan, then started overland for Saint Petersburg to obtain the signature of the tsar to the treaty, and also personal letters to the pope and king of Spain that he might ask for the dispensation and the royal consent necessary to his marriage. He, however, died of fever and exhaustion in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, on March 8, 1807 on his way to the capital.

His correspondence with the company betrays a clearly defined purpose to annex to Russia the entire western coast of North America, and to encourage immediate emigration from the parent country on a large scale. He he was deeply and humanely concerned for his employees and the wretched natives who were little more than the slaves of the company. Had he lived, there is, all things considered, hardly a doubt that he would have accomplished his object.

Argüello did not learn of his fate and continued to wait for him, rejecting all other men. Later she became a nun in Monterey, California and remained in the sisterhood until her death in 1857, in Benicia, California.

Concepcion thus lived to see California to go from a possession of Spain, to Mexico (both Republic and Empire), to independent Republic before joining the U.S. as a state.

In fact, Concepcion's presence in California was brought on by the Russians, going back to the Pomori, which I will explain next. And if you are asking why that is important, for now I will cite the New York Times, back before it made up stories.

With the number "about 300," San Francisco would be a considerable portion of the Greek American community: 1821 through 1870, official U.S. figures show 398 Greek immigrants, with 2,308 coming in the decade 1870-1880.

At the time of the article, the See of America had already been transferred to San Francisco. It is here, not in Alaska nor in Florida or New Orleans (where the GOA officially traces its origins) that the present juridictional mess takes form, capped no less than by the presence of Bp. Archp. EP Pope Meletios founding a Cathedral there, along not only ethnic and national lines, but political ones as well.

San Francisco underlines the hypocracy of the Chief Secretary in denouncing "the manner of [America's] ecclesiastical organization....organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church...[with] very concrete dangers lurk[ing] behind such a communal organization of the local Church." He, by ignoring the history of the existence of the hierarchy in this country, is merely following the footsteps of those who were "influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As one of those who criticized the unfortunate presentation by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate, I must admit that I was incensed at his allegations and my language and tone certainly must have reflected my emotions. I apologize for this as it was not conducive to proper discourse. However, there are many important issues that must be discussed.

One of the major arguments that the Patriarchate has been using to justify its claim to universal primacy is its stance that it has never forced anybody to be Hellenized or to become Greek. Indeed, there is some current evidence that the Patriarchate is embracing geographically and ethnically disparate subordinate churches without any requirement for their Hellenization (Ozgeorge actually listed a number of them in a recent posting).

The problem for me was the Chief Secretary's claim that "...(the Patriarchate) never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ." This is not true for the treatment given to the Bulgarian nation. The Patriarchate over the centuries disregarded the desire of the Bulgarian people to use their own language and clergy. I don't know what the Chief Secretary's definition of Hellenism is but, whatever the motivation, the denial of Bulgarian language and culture when the only other alternative is Greek must mean something. If this is not what the Chief Secretary meant, then I apologize to him. Nonetheless it does not change history and the plain meaning of language.

Holy Mount Athos has always been a shining bulwark of our faith. It has always been a defender of Orthodoxy in centuries past and who can doubt that it will faitfully fulfil that role today and in the future.

I was praying about this steadfastness and the Zographou Martyers came to mind. The memory of them brings to mind one of Athos' divine vocations which the Church expects of the monks -preserving the purity of our faith. May all the monasteries and all the fathers continue to be examples for us in the world.

-oOo-

Twenty-six Venerable Martyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mount Athos. In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Latin Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary.

Mount Athos stood in firm opposition to the false union. The Athonite Monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the "filioque" ["and from the Son"] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the Emperor to change his mind. "We clearly see," the letter said, "that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith."

The Crusaders pushed out of Palestine and finding refuge in the Byzantine Empire, declared to the Emperor their readiness to affirm the power of the Pope by fire and sword, if necessary. In addition, Michael had hired mercenaries, both Turks and Tatars, to enforce his decree.

The Emperor despised the righteous and true confessing Monks of Mount Athos for their opposition. Since he did not want to provoke the Greeks, he decided to vent his spite upon the Athonite Slavs. By Michael's order, the servants of the Pope descended upon the Bulgarian Zographou Monastery. When the demand to accept the false-union was presented before the Zographou Monks, they refused to listen. They adhered to the holy and blameless Faith of the Fathers, and fearlessly censured those who accepted the Latin errors. The majority of the Zographou monks left the Monastery, but the most steadfast, twenty-six in number, remained within the monastery tower. These were: Igumen Thomas, and the Monks Barsanuphios, Kyril, Michael, Simon, Hilarion, James, Job, Cyprian, Sava, Jacob, Martinian, Cosmas, Sergios, Menas, Joasaph, Joannicios, Paul, Anthony, Euthymios, Dometian, Parthenios, and four laymen.

The Holy Martyrs for their Orthodox Faith, were burned in the Monastery tower on October 10, 1284.

The idea in not to bear grudges. However, those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. And the Chief Secretary's presentation shows he has not learned from it, from the Hellenization imposed by the EP being denied, and the record of false unions under the "protos" of Rome, as the story of the martyrs at Zographou shows.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In fact, Concepcion's presence in California was brought on by the Russians, going back to the Pomori, which I will explain next. And if you are asking why that is important, for now I will cite the New York Times, back before it made up stories.

With the number "about 300," San Francisco would be a considerable portion of the Greek American community: 1821 through 1870, official U.S. figures show 398 Greek immigrants, with 2,308 coming in the decade 1870-1880.

At the time of the article, the See of America had already been transferred to San Francisco. It is here, not in Alaska nor in Florida or New Orleans (where the GOA officially traces its origins) that the present juridictional mess takes form, capped no less than by the presence of Bp. Archp. EP Pope Meletios founding a Cathedral there, along not only ethnic and national lines, but political ones as well.

No servant is greater than his master. That is how the Ecumenical Patriarchate has always seen Russia even after Russia was raised to Patriarchate in 1589. 3+ Centuries later, the very educated and shrewd Hierarch Meletios apparently took advantage of that biblical quotation to exalt Himself and depart from Orthodox canonical precedence. The early GOA Archbishops did a good job in unifying communities because no Ecumenical Patriarch would set foot in USA until Pat. Demetrios I in 1987.

San Francisco underlines the hypocracy of the Chief Secretary in denouncing "the manner of [America's] ecclesiastical organization....organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church...[with] very concrete dangers lurk[ing] behind such a communal organization of the local Church." He, by ignoring the history of the existence of the hierarchy in this country, is merely following the footsteps of those who were "influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy."

Over 50 years was needed to restore icons to the Orthodox Church after the 7th Ecumenical Council. The Church takes a long time to rectify errors and even longer now that secular influences have worked their way into the Church. Some type of symbolic fire is needed to purge the Church of those who have made these errors and perpetuated them.

Just for math exercise: one half of 666 is 333. Add 333 to 1589 and one gets 1922. Some coincidence.

It might do to pause here before I go into the meat of San Francisco as the See of America, and return to the Chief Secretary's words.

Quote

By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches,

Interesting that puts Mother in quotation marks when he puts Church in the plural.

Shall we see if, when he refers to the "Mother Church" of Constaninople, if he puts it in quotation marks.

Constantinople cannot claim the Motherhood of Orthodoxy in North America, just the grandmother (although in Orthodoxy, everyone knows the sitt/yaya/babushka/baba is the one who preserves the Faith).

That being said, I perhaps should deal with the Greek "Orthodox" of Florida:

Quote

Before the establishment of an Archdiocese in the Western Hemisphere there were numerous communities of Greek Orthodox Christians. The first Greek Orthodox community in the Americas was founded in 1864 in New Orleans,LA by a small colony of Greek merchants. History also records that on June 26,1768 the first Greek colonists landed at St.Augustine,FL, the oldest city in America. Today, the “Avero House” where these colonists worshipped has been fully restored and houses the St. Photios National Shrine, dedicated to all our ancestors who came to these shores as immigrants. It was not until just before the turn of the century that the first permanent community was founded in New York City in 1892, today’s Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity and See of the Archbishop of America.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/[just in passing, and for future reference, the Bishop Paul in New Archangel (Sitka) Paul, auxiliary to the Diocese of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands, on the sale of Alaska sent Rev. Nikolai Kovrigin to San Francisco to serve the Russians from Alaska, Fort Ross and elsewhere, along with the other Orthodox resident there. Bp. Paul was moved to Russia, but met his successor in Sitka, Bishop John of the Aleutians and Alaska (the Governing Holy Synod had detached Alaska, and given it a ruling bishop, i.e. no longer an auxiliary but a diocese in its own right), who would complete the transfer of the See to San Francisco. On route to Russia (where he went on to become bishop of the Diocese of Kamchatka, the Kurile Islands, and Blagoveshchensk, i.e. the see to which he served as suffragan in Alaska) via New York Bp. Paul consecrated on November 12, 1870, the first Orthodox church there, Holy Trinity Greco-Russian Church organized by Father Nicholas Bjerring (who had done missionary work in Lappland for the Vatican, but split with her over Vatican I in 1870. He later apostacized back).]

Leaving aside New Orleans for the moment (which has its own interesting story to tell, which ends up in San Francisco), history also records more about the Greeks of Florida, to which let's keep the Chief Secretary's words

Quote

the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region

in mind.

The colonists did not stay in St. Augustine, nor were they intended to colonize it. The colony lay south in New Smyrna, now New Smyrna Beach. There (a lovely town, btw), there are some ruins of the colonial scheme, and a monument to the Greeks of the colony, which is loudly Greek and agressively secular: it states the colonization "...had nothing to do with religion..."

Quote

New Smyrna, the largest British colonization attempt in the New World, was nearly three times larger than the first settlement at Jamestown in 1607. Dr. Turnbull obtained a land grant from the British Crown, brought with him 1,500 European immigrants and declared New Smyrna as Britain's 14th Crown Colony.

Although the colony wasn't supposed to be in St. Augustine (the oldest, European at least, city in the U.S., but that had nothing to do with the Greeks, being founded over two centuries before their landing. Btw, it is a very interesting and pleasant town), it ended up there, as the GOA site notes, but leaving out the details of how that happened.

Walking less than 5 minutes from the St. Photios Greek Orthodox National Shrine to the center of St. Augustine, you bump into a statue of Fr. Pedro Camps, a Minorcan Priest whom the Greek Mrs. Turnbull, nee Maria Gracia Dura Bin, hired for the colonists spiritual needs.

Quote

This statue of Father Pedro Camps and others was presented to the Bishop of Saint Augustine, Paul F. Tanner, by Ferdinando A, Rubio, of Minorca, in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the arrival of Minorcan colonists in St. Augustine. It was dedicated to the city April, 24, 1975.

The first Mass celebrated on the North American continent (not the Caribbean Islands) was celebrated in Pensacola, Florida, and Florida became a very Catholic colony, but by 1763 the English ruled the area, and one year later, astonishingly, no more than eight Catholics, all lay people, remained.

In 1763, Spanish East Florida was ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Paris which concluded the French and Indian Wars, only to be returned to Spain 20 years later as part of the settlement of the American War of Independence. After the American Revolution, the British retroceded Florida back to Spain (Second Spanish Period: 1783-1821).

So England gained control of Florida in 1763 and held this control until 1783, when Spain regained Florida. It was during this British period, that a Scottish doctor by the name of Andrew Turnbull, a former British Consul at Smyrna, Greece was given a grant of approximately 20,000 acres of land about 70 miles south of St. Augustine, Florida and called it New Smyrna named after Smyrna, the birthplace of his wife.

Although the English occupation of Florida was to last for twenty years, catholicity was reborn in the province only five years after its sudden disappearance. The rebirth was worked by a remarkable priest, Fr. Pedro Camps, at the head of an equally remarkable people. The story begins at the port of Mahon on the east side of Minorca, east of Spain in the Mediterranean. There, in 1767, this Scottish physician turned colonizer, Andrew Turnbull, began collecting colonists his projected colony in East Florida. Although Mahon was at first only a collection point for the Greeks and Italians that Turnbull preferred, it eventually became the principle source for his company. By April 1768, Minorcans formed the overwhelming majority of the 1403 who had signed on as indentured servants.

In 1768, Turnbull collected about 1,403 people from the Mediterranean to colonize and work on his project. One hundred ten of these were Italians recruited in the port city of Livorno, Italy. They were ensconced at the port city of Mahon, Minorca, the second largest of the Balearic Islands off the coast of Spain. He then sailed to the port city of Smyrna and the surrounding Levant to collect several hundred Greeks For eight months, Turnbull sailed the Mediterranean and Aegean seeking Greeks and others, although the majority who signed on for his venture would be Minorcans. When Turnbull finally returned to Mahon he found that nearly all of his young Italians had married or were betrothed to Minorcan girls. The Minorcan families of these girls appealed to be included in the proposed British Colony. Other Minorcan families pressed to go also. Consequently, other than a few hundred Italians and Greeks, the final group that sailed in eight ships, totaling 1,403, was largely Minorcan, whose ancestry was mostly Roman and Latin. So some 400 Greeks, 900 Minorcans and a few dozen Corsicans and Italians comprised the initial group.

After four months at sea, the eight ships reached St. Augustine, and later, arrived at Los Mosquitos Inlet (New Smyrna ). They arrived on June 26,1768, in St. Augustine to collect provisions on their way to the New Smyrna Colony. Interestingly, the Greeks were from Smyrna (Asia Minor), Mani (Peloponessos), Santorini and Crete, and since the Ottomans did not allow a Greek Orthodox priest to accompany them, their religious and spiritual needs were administered by the Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Pedro Camps, from Minorca.

Andrew Turnbull’s wife, Gracia Dura Bin, was Catholic, and she took it upon herself to enlist the services of two priests for the colony, Father Pedro Camps, a thirty eight year old Roman Catholic secular priest from Mercadal, Minorca whose zeal and skill at preaching was widely respected on Minorca and Father Bartolome Casanovas, an Augustinian. After some political wrangling (Minorca was under English rule but Mallorca the diocesan seat was under Spanish rule.) both priests were commissioned as apostolic missionaries which gave them wide privileges for their work. Fr. Camps kept extensive vital statistics records which he called the Golden Book of the Minorcans and later he began the Cathedral Parish records in St. Augustine.

His pains taking efforts in recording baptisms, marriages and deaths give us an excellent background for many of the families’ histories. The original Golden Book of the Minorcans of Father Camps is still in good condition and several handwritten copies are on file at the Historical Society Research Library in St. Augustine. Microm films of the original document is also available at the Research Library.

Father Camps and Casanovas were hard pressed to keep courage and hope alive among the people. They built a crude hut for a church and called it San Pedro (sometimes referred to as St. Peter). Fr. Camps was no minimalist. He was a real spiritual leader and advisor for his community. He continuously catechized his people and preached every Sunday with special services during Lent.He was universally accepted even by the English who agreed to pay him $300.00 per year, although that did not occur on a regular basis. In 1774 Fr. Casanovas was deported by Turnbull for alleged insubordination to colony officials. Fr. Camps made repeated attempts to communicate with Minorca and Havana to secure another priest for his maltreated people, but English authorities blocked all attempts because many of the colonists in New Smyrna were unhappy and wanted to escape to Cuba. Hence, English officials under Turnbull’s command forbade communications with Havana.

Father Camps had been told by the Holy See in 1768 to make contact with the bishop of Havana in Cuba which was almost impossible because of the English. In October 1769 Camps talked two Cuban fishermen into taking a message to the bishop of Santiago, asking for Holy Oils and other necessities. Since this bishop knew of no Catholic colonies in Florida, he sent the message to Spain which eventually had to go to Rome for validation. This process took two years.

Fr. Camps was warned at one point for interfering in "temporal" affairs when he presented to the governor a memorial in which he stated the grievances of his poor maltreated people. Turnbull warned him to avoid temporal concerns or suffer the fate of deportation.

1777 the Minorcans determined that Turnbull would not grant them land for their indentured servitude, so two colonists made their way to the governor. Ramon Rogero, and Francisco Pellicer, Sr. undertook to build a makeshift boat so they could get to St. Augustine to report conditions to the governor. This was not the first time the Minorcans had begged the Governor to intercede on their behalf. Instead of reaching St. Augustine, the two men were picked up by a British ship sailing to Baltimore. From there they worked their way back down to St. Augustine on foot and horseback.

They reached St. Augustine and met with the governor, who showed great empathy for their plight. He sent soldiers to the colony and took numerous depositions (all a matter of recorded history) from a number of the colonists. Governor Patrick Tonyn issued orders releasing from their contracts all that had been mistreated or signed on under legal age which meant the virtual dissolution of the colony. Turnbull gave these half starved people four days to get out. Fransisco Pellicer, head carpenter of the settlement, led the Minorcans out of bondage to the city of St. Augustine, Florida. They marched on foot. The women, children, and aged walked in the center while the men, armed with stakes, took up the flanks. Three days later they were in St. Augustine.

After nine years of exploitation, deprivation and broken promises, Turnbull's colony failed and the entire group of Minorcans, Italians and Greeks walked the King's Highway to freedom in St. Augustine.

As a result, the governor permitted the colony to come to St. Augustine "en masse" which they did in July 1777. The total number of Minorcans (now a collective name for the diverse cultural group) that arrived in St. Augustine was a far cry from the number left Minorca nine years prior. There were 1403 that left Minorca in those eight ships and in the ensuing nine years 930 died. With new births in that same period, there were 600 who fled to St. Augustine in 1777.

Father Camps stayed behind with the sick. He was held a virtual prisoner there by Turnbull, he was refused his arrears in salary and the use of any sacred vessels because he refused to counsel his people to live and work in the bondage of New Smyrna. He was held in New Smyrna and was not released until November of 1777 even though the sick had already been sent to St. Augustine by ship. There he began a new parish, the only one in St. Augustine at the time, on the ground floor of a residence by the city gates and called it San Pedro.

He made the following entry in his Golden Book:

On the 9th day of November 1777, the church of San Pedro was translated from the settlement of Mosquito to the city of Saint Augustine, with the same colony of Mahonese Minorcans which was established in the said settlement, and the same parish priest and Missionary Apostolic, Dr. Dn. Pedro Camps. (Dr. Pedro Camps, Parish Priest.)

Fr. Camps was in ill health and had been sending messages to the Bishop of Havana for three years asking for help. Finally in December of 1778 the king sent two Irishmen, but war had broken out, and Florida was blockaded by the English. The first of the priests did not arrive until June of 1784 when the Spaniards once again took formal possession of the colony of Florida. Fr. Camps had petitioned to retire, but was keenly aware of the plight of his Minorcan speaking people among an English speaking clergy. He had been promised retirement in Mallorca as a canon of the Cathedral of Mallorca, but he refused to leave as long as there was no other priest who spoke the native language to replace him. Although two more priests who spoke Spanish were eventually sent, they did not understand the Minorcan dialect or culture, and the Minorcans were the bulk of the population at that time in Saint Augustine because the English left en masse after the Spanish took over. In 1787 the first free school, in what is now the United States, was opened for the Minorcan children.

The Saint Photios Greek Orthodox National Shrine is well within the Minorcan quarter of St. Augustine.

The Floridas turned down the invitation of the Continental Congress to join the emerging U.S., and returned to Spain. The Turnbulls left for life in South Carolina. New Smyrna had no population to speak of until its incorporation in 1887 with 150.

As for Greek "Orthodoxy" in St. Augustine:

Quote

Each year, pilgrims from across the land journey to this place of Greek- American beginnings, to the St. Photios National Shrine, in order to participate in the active witness of this important ministry of the Church. Like its patron Saint, the Shrine is called to be a steadfast beacon to the faithful, maintaining and perpetuating our Orthodox faith and Hellenic heritage, which we offer graciously to contemporary America. This sacred and historic site is the only Greek Orthodox National Shrine in the country. It is primarily a religious institution and is located in America's oldest city, St. Augustine, Florida. The Shrine consists of an original building called the Avero House, a two-story structure built in 1749. It was here in this building that, with the demise of the New Smyrna Colony in 1777, the remaining colonists gathered and made this house (now the St. Photios National Shrine) their place for prayer and fellowship.The saga of the colonists of New Smyrna, Florida, is the story of a little-known link in the chain binding 18th century old-world immigrants to new-world settlers. The first Greek pilgrims who came to the United States came here looking for a better life for themselves and their descendants. Upon their arrival they did not have much in terms of material wealth but they did offer this land the most precious gift in the world: the Orthodox Faith! Although many hopes and dreams had been shattered, the survivors of the New Smyrna odyssey eagerly met the challenge of starting a new life in St. Augustine. There, in St. Augustine, the few remaining Greeks gathered in a residence for solace, fellowship and worship. The English had given the Avero House on St. George Street, in St. Augustine, to be used as a place of fellowship and worship for the colonists.

In 1965, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America learned from some of the Greeks living in St. Augustine then, that the residence on St. George Street, built originally in 1749 by the Spanish Avero family, was available. The Avero House was purchased by the Archdiocese...In 1969, Archbishop Iakovos announced that the Greek Orthodox National Shrine in America would bear the name of Saint Photios the Great...Like its patron saint – Saint Photios – the Shrine is called to be a steadfast beacon to the faithful, maintaining and perpetuating our Orthodox Faith and Hellenic Heritage; to project Orthodox Christianity through its programs and activities to all who pass through its historic doors; and to initiate the mission endeavor of love, of freedom, a better life, and to communicate the Gospel of Christ...It was dedicated to the memory of that first colony and to all Greek immigrants who came to these shores seeking a new world and a new life. The purpose of the Saint Photios Greek Orthodox National Shrine is to honor the memory of that first colony of Greeks, and thus honor all pioneers who later followed to establish the Church communities that now comprise our Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America...Greek Orthodox faithful are encouraged to make a pilgrimage to the National Shrine

Now, I don't have a problem with the St. Photios Shrine. I rather like the place and its conception. And I like the idea of the GOA owning where the first Greeks settled in the New World. But I can't deny that, if history holds any title, that it should belong to the "Greek Catholics."

As the lengthy quote shows, we have quite a bit of documentation of the colony and its aftermath: the registry of the Vatican's basilica, the depositions of the English governor, etc. One of the Greek to survive, Gaspar Papi

Quote

It is certain from his will and other documents that Gaspar was Greek and of the Roman Catholic faith from infancy.

Gaspar and the other future colonists from the Greek Isles, Corsica, and Italy were gathered at Turnbull’s base port of Mahon on the Isle of Minorca in the Mediterranean. Some of these reportedly lived aboard ship, while others lived in hastily made shacks in a “shantytown” near the port of Mahon while Turnbull gathered still others for his venture. While the men waited for their eventual departure, many fell in love with, and married Minorcan girls, who were said to be very beautiful. They also told the Minorcan people, who were suffering from a severe famine, of the wonderful opportunity for a new life promised by Dr. Turnbull. One of the families who decided to leave Minorca was that of newly married Juan Jose Magin Buenaventura Andreu and his wife Catalina Gertrudis Antonia Pons. Catalina was the daughter of Miguel Pons and Fransesquina Coll. Fransesquina was most likely deceased by then, because Juan and Catalina Pons Andreu brought her little sister, Ana Maria Eulalia Pons to the new world with them. Ana was about seven years old when they departed Minorca in the spring of 1768...Roman Catholic Records from Mercadal, Minorca record the marriage of Miguel and Francesquina on June 16, 1743...Ana’s baptismal record translated from Catalan states: Anne Marie Pons, 9 June 1761: I, the Reverend Sebastian Cardell, Pre[late], baptized Anna Maria Eulalia, daughter of Miguel Pons and Fransesquine Coll, married couple. Godparents: Diego Messenet and Anne Messenet, his wife. She was born on the 8th day at about 3 in the afternoon.). Ana Pons was destined to become the bride of Gaspar Papy.

Do we have a single record of an Orthodox Greek in the company? Many had submitted to the Vatican in Smyrna (including the family of the lady of the colony, who took their spiritual needs upon herself), Crete, Mani and Corsica (whether many from Many went): where did the Orthodox come from? How can we say

Quote

The first Orthodox parish in this country was established in the town of New Smyrna, Florida in 1768

Has anything survived of the New Smyrneans' "Orthodoxy?" Did they cling to it as tenatiously as the Alaskans did?

The Chief Secretary can admire Fr. Camps diliegence in organizing his parish, catechizing his parisioners, and obeying his bishop (even under threat of expulsion by the English governor). But Fr. Camp answered to Old, not New, Rome. Did the Orthodox, if they existed, withstand the preaching of Fr. Camps? The massive intermarriage in Fr. Camps church, with the communicants of that church, if the Greeks were not already communicants of that church?

Does anyone know of any evidence that the Orthodox services, even a reader's service or even a Orthodox prayer ever happened in Avero House, until the GOA purchased it?

If not, then I expect the Chief Secretary, true to his words "that the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin" is "not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church," that "the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology....dictate that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region...has the ultimate authority," and have GOA delete the reference to New Smyrna from their history.

« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 03:05:18 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A nice gloss of the history of New Smyrna. The Greeks were promised a Greek Orthodox priest before signing the contracts of indenture. Upon their arrival, just barely south of St. Augustine, the British organizer of the colony reneged on his promise and provided an RC priest only.

I'm sure Isa is better versed in this history.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

A nice gloss of the history of New Smyrna. The Greeks were promised a Greek Orthodox priest before signing the contracts of indenture. Upon their arrival, just barely south of St. Augustine, the British organizer of the colony reneged on his promise and provided an RC priest only.

I'm sure Isa is better versed in this history.

Actually, no.

The problem is the details are lacking in most portrayals of the New Smyrna Greeks. It is just assumed that since they were Greek, then they must have been Orthodox, etc. I was also rather shocked on how secular, almost militantly so, the Greek Monument in Riverside Park, New Smyrna Beach was.

If you have some information on a promise of an ORTHODOX priest, or some other evidence about Orthodox among the Greeks, I'm all ears (or eyes). Because all the details I've come across or found all point to them being baptized, like Mrs. Turnbull in whose honor the colony was named, by Old Rome, not New Rome. Even the story about them worshipping in Nevaro House is new.

I tried finding your information on the St. Photios Shrine, and this is the first thing I saw:

Quote

These relics (small pieces of bone were obtained from the Vatican and gifted in 1984 to the St. Photios National Shrine by the Three Hierarchs Church in Brooklyn, NY. Documents of Authenticity were provided by the Vatican. The Reliquary was gifted to the Shrine by Archbishop Iakovos. Each silver container in the Reliquary contains a relic of one of the following saints

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A special audio/visual tape, “Our Plymouth Rock,” is available in the bookstore/gift shop and when viewed, creates a pictorial highway that transports you from the shores of ancient Greece to America. It tells the story of Greek immigrants finding themselves in a hostile and unknown

Come to think of it, Florida didn't enter the USA as a State until 1845. The GrecoItaloMinorcans surely didn't evangelize anyone in Florida whether it be the British, the Spanish or the Seminole Indians.

The GrecoItaloMinorcans at St. Augustine represent escape from the Ottoman Yoke - 53 years before Bishop Germanos raised the flag of "freedom or death" at Aghia Lavra.

Apparently, there are 8 sources for the Greek settlement of St. Augustine according to the news release mentioning the annual St. Photios Essay Winner

She referenced eight sources including New Smyrna: An Eighteenth Century Greek Odyssey by EP Panagopoulos, The Story of the Founders of St. Photios National Shrine by Constantine Santas, Greeks in America by Babis Malafouris, and The Majesty of St. Augustine by Steven Brooke. Her research also included interviewing of one of the founders, Olga Fotiou, and a copy of the cover of Holiday Magazine (March 1961 issue) promoting an article about St. Augustine’s early Greek colonists.

I believe it is in reprint. You may read therein the letters of the organizer of the colony and his statements promising to the Greeks "a priest of their own religion"; how to make up a full complement of colonists he ended up with a mix 60% Greek, 40% Maltese and Corsicans; provided a Roman Catholic priest only; the conversion of the Greeks to Catholicism as a result (convert from what, I ask you?); and the single family which refused conversion, remaining Orthodox.

I've been to the shrine in Florida - it's an obligatory family tradition from my mother's side.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 01:57:19 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I believe it is in reprint. You may read therein the letters of the organizer of the colony and his statements promising to the Greeks "a priest of their own religion"; how to make up a full complement of colonists he ended up with a mix 60% Greek, 40% Maltese and Corsicans; provided a Roman Catholic priest only; the conversion of the Greeks to Catholicism as a result (convert from what, I ask you?); and the single family which refused conversion, remaining Orthodox.

I've been to the shrine in Florida - it's an obligatory family tradition from my mother's side.

I'll try to lay my hands on it (I prefer primary sources anyway). If what you say is true (and I don't have to doubt it) then my question is, why does the shrine not credit to that single faithful Orthodox family?

Maltese? You mean, Minorcan? And I always understood that the Corsicans were Greek Corsicans.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 08:18:14 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I believe it is in reprint. You may read therein the letters of the organizer of the colony and his statements promising to the Greeks "a priest of their own religion"; how to make up a full complement of colonists he ended up with a mix 60% Greek, 40% Maltese and Corsicans; provided a Roman Catholic priest only; the conversion of the Greeks to Catholicism as a result (convert from what, I ask you?); and the single family which refused conversion, remaining Orthodox.

I've been to the shrine in Florida - it's an obligatory family tradition from my mother's side.

I'll try to lay my hands on it (I prefer primary sources anyway). If what you say is true (and I don't have to doubt it) then my question is, why does the shrine not credit to that single faithful Orthodox family?

Maltese? You mean, Minorcan? And I always understood that the Corsicans were Greek Corsicans.

Good questions all! I have the book but read it last about 12 years ago. As to Minorcan, perhaps...working from memory there. I do recall the colonists were of mixed ethnicity and "religion" and do not remember any Greek Corsicans. The shrine is to St. Photios, no specific family.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

In sum the challenge of Orthodoxy is figuring out who actually settled here first and that is probably our most pressing issue.

By no means. But it is a means of solving the line that the Chief Secretary is spouting, which his boss is pressing.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 10:15:39 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Maybe the question should be which jurisdiction has produced the most saints in this new land. Rather than based on claims that one family in Florida remained Orthodox. That's a bad as the claims that were once on the GOA website claiming Chistopher Columbus was Greek and a Greek sailor came over over with the Spanish conquistors trying to prove who was here first. Hopefully these claims are no longer on the site! Contrary to what some may think - 'One does not have to be Orthdox to be Greek. Or in order to be Greek one doesnot have to be Orhodox. In America we can be what we want.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Maybe the question should be which jurisdiction has produced the most saints in this new land. Rather than based on claims that one family in Florida remained Orthodox. That's a bad as the claims that were once on the GOA website claiming Chistopher Columbus was Greek and a Greek sailor came over over with the Spanish conquistors trying to prove who was here first. Hopefully these claims are no longer on the site! Contrary to what some may think - 'One does not have to be Orthdox to be Greek. Or in order to be Greek one doesnot have to be Orhodox. In America we can be what we want.

Orthodoc

Chuckle...one would hope. The book, published in the 1930s where this Columbus-Chios connection seems to first have surfaced I once read, back in 1964. I went searching for it a couple years ago and only found it in the Library of Congress. [Christopher Columbus was a Greek and his real name was Nikolaos Ypshilantis, Spyros Cateras]Last month I found a copy on the Internet for sale for $200+...I wasn't THAT interested. Working from memory alone, I think I debunked most of it anyway.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Maybe the question should be which jurisdiction has produced the most saints in this new land. Rather than based on claims that one family in Florida remained Orthodox. That's a bad as the claims that were once on the GOA website claiming Chistopher Columbus was Greek and a Greek sailor came over over with the Spanish conquistors trying to prove who was here first. Hopefully these claims are no longer on the site! Contrary to what some may think - 'One does not have to be Orthdox to be Greek. Or in order to be Greek one doesnot have to be Orhodox. In America we can be what we want.

Orthodoc

Not directly to your point, but related: I see that the St. Photios Shrine is advertised as the only Shrine in the America, which puzzles me, as I see it neither as a shrine, and there are shrines in America.

What does St. Photios have to do with the site? How would it be different from a parish named in St. Photios' honor? What makes it a "shrine?" St. Photios, as best I can tell has no connection to it, except that the Orthodox Christian Mission Center is also head-quartered in St. Augustine. It would have made more sense, I would think, to have a shrine to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, as the colony was named in honor of his parish.

America has shrines: I went to the Cathedral of the Joy of All who Sorrow, built by St. John Maximovish of San Francisco, consecrated by him, and graced by his incorruptible relics. (someone there told me that is why SF doesn't fall into the sea)

I've been to the shrine of St. Gregory Palamas (in Thessalonica, in the north of the city if I remember correctly. If you are in the vicinity and don't perform a pilgramage, it is a sin:not only to venerate St. Gregory's relics which are available, but also because the Church is a gorgeous example of the best that Greek Orthodoxy has to offer in the way of an ediface). St. John's compares favorably to St. Gregory's

Usually St. Mary's in Minnesota is not seen as a shrine: most go to St. Tikhon's in PA to venerate St. Alexis' relics. But I went on pilgrimage there in MN to see where he began to gather the sheep that had gone astray, where he formed the first seminary in the lower 48, and where he celebrated DL.

My old parish, Holy Trinity Cathedral in Chicago, where I was married and where my oldest son was baptized, was founded by a Saint, Fr. John Kuchurev the neo-martyr (the first murdered by the Bolsheviks) and was consecrated by a Saint, Archb. Tikhon, Met. Jonah's predecessor. The cathedral has relics of both: indeed the whole church is a relic of their mission in America.

I haven't been to the state of AK, so haven't had the fortune yet, but know those who have, of venerating the many shrines of St. Herman, St. Juvenaly, St. Innocent, etc. there.

I went to Fort Ross on pilgramage, although its chapel was never consecrated (the Fort never had a permanent priest assigned). But St. Innocent ministered there, baptized the resident, native, AMERICAN Orthodox there, and celebrated DL in it.

I'm afraid that the Chief Secretary would have the same tone as he has for Met. Jonah as for Met. Jonah's predecessor, St. Archb. Tikhon, Enlightener of America, in his farewell sermon before returning to Russia, eventually to become Patriarch of Moscow:

Quote

This Sunday is called “The Sunday of Orthodoxy” or “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” since on this day the Holy Church solemnly commemorates her victory over Iconoclasm and other heresies. And this triumph of Orthodoxy took place not just a thousand years ago. No – for due to the mercy of God, the Church up to this day, now here and now there, gains victory and is triumphant over her enemies – and she has many of them.

It is not a coincidence that the Church is likened to a ship, sailing amidst a ferocious, stormy sea which is ready to drown it in its waves. And the further the ship sails, the harder the waves slam against it, the fiercer they attack it! But the harder the waves hit the ship, the further they are thrown away and rejoin the abyss and disappear in it, and the ship continues its triumphant sailing as before. For “the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2.19), since the Church of Christ is built on an immovable rock, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16.18).

The Church of Christ is the kingdom not of this world. It does not possess any of the attractions of the earthly world. It is persecuted and slandered. Yet it not only avoids perishing in the world, but grows and defeats the world! This happens everywhere, and here in our land as well. “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4.20).

It is true that our Church here cannot boast of the quantity of its members, neither of their erudition. Just like the “preaching of Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1.23), for some it seems lowly and contemptible, and for others it seems simple and foolish, but in reality “God’s power and wisdom” (1 Cor. 1.24) are concealed in it. It is strong and rich with the authenticity of the doctrine which has been preserved unaltered, with full adherence to the guiding regulations of the Church, a deep sense of liturgical service, and a plenitude of grace. And with all of this it is gradually attracting the hearts of people, and it is growing and getting stronger more and more in this country.

You brethren have witnessed and seen for yourselves the growth and strengthening of Orthodoxy here. Just a mere twelve to fifteen years ago, we, aside from faraway Alaska, barely had any churches here. There were no priests, and the Orthodox people numbered only in a few dozens and maybe a few hundreds. And even they lived dispersed, far from one another.

And now? “The Orthodox are seen this day in this country.” Our temples appear not only in big cities but in obscure places as well. We have a multitude of clergy, and tens of thousands of faithful – and not only those who have been Orthodox for a while, but those who have converted from among the Uniates. Schools are opened, the brotherhoods are established. Even strangers acknowledge the success of Orthodoxy here. So how can we ourselves not celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” and not thank the Lord who helps His Church!

But it is not enough, brethren, only to celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It is necessary for us personally to promote and contribute to this triumph. And for this we must reverently preserve the Orthodox Faith, standing firm in it in spite of the fact that we live in a non-Orthodox country, and not pleading as an excuse for our apostasy that “it is not the old land here but America, a free country, and therefore it is impossible to follow everything that the Church requires.” As if the word of Christ is only suitable for the old land and not for the entire world! As if the Church of Christ is not “catholic”! As if the Orthodox Faith did not “establish the universe”!

Furthermore, while faithfully preserving the Orthodox Faith, everyone must also take care to spread it among the non-Orthodox. Christ the Savior said that having lit the candle, men do not put it under a bushel but on a candlestick so that it gives light to all (Matt. 5.15). The light of the Orthodox Faith has not been lit to shine only for a small circle of people. No, the Orthodox Church is catholic; she remembers the commandment of her Founder, “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and teach all nations” (Mark 16.15; Matt. 28.19).

We must share our spiritual richness, truth, light, and joy with others who do not have these blessings. And this duty does not only lay upon the pastors and the missionaries but on the lay persons as well, since the Church of Christ, according to the wise comparison of the Holy Apostle Paul, is the body, and every member takes part in the life of the body. By means of all sorts of mutually binding bonds which are formed and strengthened through the action of every member according to his capacity, the great Church body receives an increase unto the edifying of itself (cf. Eph. 4.16).

In the first centuries it was not only the pastors who were tortured, but lay persons as well – men, women, and even children. And it was lay people likewise who enlightened the heathen and fought heresies. And now in the same way, the spreading of the Faith should be a matter that is personal, heartfelt, and dear to each one of us. Every member of the Church must take an active part in it – some by personal podvig spreading the Good News, some by material donations and service to “the needs of the holy persons,” and some by profuse prayer to the Lord that He “keep His Church firm and multiply it” – and concerning those unaware of Christ, that He would “proclaim the word of truth to them, open to them the Gospel of Truth, and join them to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” I have told this numerous times to my flock. And today, upon my departing from this land, I once more command all of you to preserve and act upon this, and especially you brethren of this holy temple.

You witnessed yourself last Sunday that “The foreknowledge of God drew you closer to the bishop’s cathedra, and that the awareness of this closeness elevates your Christian spirit and edifies the nature of your undertakings, inspiring you for everything good.” Your temple is a Cathedral. It is preeminent in the diocese. And being its parishioners, you brethren must give others an example in everything good that concerns the life of the Church, including caring for the Orthodox Faith.

Furthermore, your parish is Russian, almost entirely consisting of people who came from Russia. And to this very day Russia has been famous as a holy Christian land, whose adornment is the Orthodox Faith, the piousness of her people, and her temples of God. So brethren, uphold here in a foreign land the glory of your motherland. Manifest yourselves before the non-Orthodox as the Russian Orthodox people.

I can say with comfort that in these days, with your zealous attendance at our temple, you’ve made a good impression on the local residents. And you have especially gladdened my heart and expelled the sadness and grief which was felt not only by me in other places at the sight of empty temples during the feastday Church services.

May the Lord strengthen you to excel in the Orthodox Faith more and more – my last prayer is about this . . . Today I depart from you. And so, farewell, fathers and brethren of this holy temple, who are close to me not only in spirit but in our joint prayers, labors, and residence! Farewell to you, the rest of my flock scattered across the wide horizon of this land! Farewell, all those of you wandering in the deserts, working in the mountains and in the depths of the earth, and those on the islands far out in the sea!

Farewell to you, my Cathedral temple! You are dear and close to me. It has been during the time of my service that you were opened, you were adorned during my time as well, and you were made a cathedral during my time. Perhaps for some who have seen the large, magnificent temples in Russia, you might seem small and modest, and you do not shine with gold and silver and precious gemstones like those temples do. But for Russian Orthodox people, who suffered here for a long time without a temple, you represent a precious treasure, and they rejoice that they have you – like the Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity rejoiced at the time of the construction of the second temple, even though it was not as splendid as that of Solomon. So:

“Oh Lord, the God of Israel! May Thine eyes be open toward this house night and day, that Thou mayest hearken unto the prayer of Thy people when they shall pray in this place! . . . Moreover, concerning a stranger that is not of Thy people, when he shall come and pray in this house, hear Thou him from Heaven, Thy dwelling place!” (3 Kingdoms 8.26-27, 39-41).

Farewell to you, this country! For some you are the motherland, the place of birth; for others you gave shelter, work, and well-being. Some received the freedom to profess the right Faith in your liberal land. God spoke in ancient times through the prophet, “And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall you have peace” (Jer. 29.7; Hebrew text).

And so, let us pray to the Lord that He send this country “a plenitude of the earthly fruits, fair weather, timely rain and wind, and preserve it from the cowardly, flood, fire, sword, invasion of foreigners, and civil strife.”

Let God’s blessing be upon this country, this city, and this temple. And let “the blessing of the Lord, with grace and love for man,” rest upon you all, “now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”

Contrast this vision, as I will below, with this "vision" or lack thereof:

Quote

You have, my brothers and sisters, the privilege to be citizens of a country which determines to a great extent the fate of many people on our planet, a country where pioneering technologies as well as ideas and philosophies have been discovered and disseminated. The cultural peculiarities and characteristics of the United States find also a reflection in, as it is only natural, and exercise an influence on the religious communities of this country. It is far from accidental that none of the “traditional” religions (coming either from Europe or elsewhere), remained the same once they were replanted on American soil.

The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

I still think a good deal of what Fr. Lambriniadis is absolutely correct.

I know that Chief Secretary and his boss do not like to hear the truth of Ligonier (why Archb. Iakovos of blessed memory went into exile), but we do not live in "diaspora." As long as they in denial about that, the prattling should fall on deaf ears.

Nothing about documentation, but our priest just returned from Sweden and Norway, telling it was "business as usual" there.

There is a group in Norway, which was years ago all members of the State church of Norway but is now ecumenical because some have left. Some went to Rome. A large group tried to go Orthodox, but the Greek primate of Sweden was against the idea of Orthodoxy being for Scandinavians, so they ended up forming the "Nordic Catholic Church" and joined the Polish National Church. This Nordic church already have their own bishop. Another lost opportunity for Orthodoxy.

There was a recent plan to form a convent in Norway near Aeslund (a Greek family of 30+ years there told this story). Up to a hundred nuns, and 15 priests from Athos to minister to them and the surrounding country. Again, the Greek primate KOd the idea, as it smacked of the idea that "Orthodoxy is for Scandinavians."

The remnants of the non-Greeks there, basically the Slavs, have moved in that they have services in Norwegian, etc. Evidenty, since all non-Greeks are the same, the primate isn't watching too closely what the exarchate is doing.

Btw, word was that the Greek primate ended up in Scandinavia because he was run out of Greece.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 07:13:35 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Some do. There is no Orthodox Church in this country. There are a number which exist in parallel. The speech itself is actually pointless. Not because there is some form of unity without the EP on the horizon which is a threat, but that unity itself is could be on the horizon (under the EP or anyone else). It's going the other direction.

Many don't. Actually, most don't. As far as the Greeks, they are free to return (there is a net immigration to Greece from the U.S. now).

When I get to it, I'll bring up the NY Times article already quoted, when he shows the the Greeks were very much in diaspora, putting the hand to the plough and looking back. In fact, it was politics back home which birthed the GOA here, as we'll see.

I went on about the Amerindian converts because they have no earthly homeland, but here. They formed the core of the Orthodox Church here, and eventually did get what the U.S. promised them. The Orthodox Church, in the form of the Churches that Russia had built up, belonged to them by treaty. That diocese was as much a part of the Russian Church as any in Siberia, and similarly constructed, in canonical order.

Now, when Russia moved its border back, that didn't place them in "diaspora." They didn't go anywhere. In fact, true to its founding as a missionary Church, on the principle of the Great Commission, if it went anywhere, it predated Alaska into the U.S. The Russian presence in CA had a hand in course of its history, including practically entering the U.S. as a State. Like Athena from Zeus' forehead, CA entered as a center in America, centered on the SF-Sacramento-East Coast axis. Rather than going to Oregon in the North or to L.A. in the South (as had originally been proposed), the Pony Express, Transcontinental Railroad, Transcontinental Telegraph, etc. went to SF. And when SF went into the U.S. the Russian presence there, AK's Southern branch as it were, entered into the American mainstream, as a forerunner of the move of the See of Sitka to SF, and thence NY.

Now, for one thing, it's interesting in that it doesn't have any English on the face. In fact, it might be the first U.S. coin to have any language besides English or Latin on it. Is Hawaiian an American language? It is spoken in the U.S. In fact, it is probably spoken no where else but the U.S. (btw, the coins of the Kingdom of Hawaii had English on them too).

But what is really interesting is that it is the first coin minted by the U.S. to have the image of a monarch (at least since George III). Now, is Kamehameha I an American king? His kingdom is of the U.S. His law is still on the books. He and his successors are buried in the U.S., their palace is in the U.S. The last of their line ended her days as a U.S. citizen, and with a pension from the U.S. territorial authority.

(btw, the Russian-American company was first in Hawaii too with Orthodoxy).

So too, with the incorporation of CA and AK into the U.S., the Orthodox Church did not remain "foreign" to the U.S., as she had been a native Church from the beginning. As Mr. Coin points out in his excellent critique of the Chief Secretary's speech: they did not come to the superpower called the U.S. to create a diaspora. They were incorporated into the U.S. and helped to make it a superpower.

Quote

There is no Orthodox Church in this country. There are a number which exist in parallel.

Hence the fact that the Chief Secretary's nerve is hit by Met. Jonah's comment that "with the formation of the so-called OCA “the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America." It hit too close to home. Fact is, with the formation of the Orthodox Church in this country, and the formation of this country, there is a direct path that leads to the OCA as being the one bishop of the American cities that the canons call for. It is the refusal of the precursors of the GOA to acknowledge this that has led to the jurisdictional mess. Not the refusal to share in delusions as to the meaning of canon 28 of Chalcedon.

Quote

The speech itself is actually pointless.

No, it is pointed. Like a missile.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 11:00:57 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Russians are known throughout history as a xenophobic people; Yet, they evangelized the Aleuts, Inuits and others while the "subjects" of the under the Byzantine Ottoman Empire either ratted each other out to Ottoman officials,...

If the OCA can get its act together and if Met. Jonah turns out to be a good Metropolitan I have no problem with the OCA being the "Church" in America. I remember when a group left the GOA parish here in 2007 to start their own parish because the priest wanted more greek in the service they refused to even consider the OCA because of how it appeared to them.I grew up in what became the OCA. I remember my mother telling me during the Cuban Missle Crisis that I was not to say that I was "Russian " Orthodox.

1. What does this bit of EP bashing have to do with Tamara's sentiments?2. What does this bit of EP bashing have to do with the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch, the subject of this thread?3. If you want nothing to do with the doctrines of the EP, then why are you still in the Antiochian church, which just happens to be in communion with the very EP you just dragged through the mud?

IOW, if you want to trash the EP like you just did, please don't derail this thread with such irrelevant tripe.

....Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

At present we (the Antiochians) are having hiearch problems which many are connecting to the EP. I've received word from three dioceses that the deaneries are trying to decipher the cryptic final reference. I might refrain from going through the Chief Secretary's speech during Lent, but since the seal is scheduled to be set during Bright Week, we don't have that luxury, if we want to stop Nektarios' "dream."

I'm afraid I'm not clear on what your talking about (I'm not up on all my cross-jurisdiction church situations and the politics behind thema). If you get a minute, feel free to PM me and fill me in. I'd be interested to know.

Out of respect for you and GI Day, and to honor St. Gregory V of Constantinople, I didn't post yesterday on this thread. Just in case I might talk out of season.

It is going around the Antiochian deaneries, that there is talk that the Patriarch of Antioch might sell the archdiocese out to the EP, and that is in part what is behind the latest directives. Hence the Chief Secretary's closing sentence is of great interest.

Now, not that we think that we are big potatoes or that, but just pawns in the show down between the EP and the PoM in this Great Synod that the EP is pushing for, and the Chief Secretary underlined. It is harder for the EP to make his "28 canon" argument as long as Antioch, an older Patriarchate that owes nothing of her to existence to either Constantinople nor the Ecumenical Councils, has an Archdiocese here, with deeper and MORE CANONICAL roots, and autonomy.

If it's not irrelevant to this thread, then how come you needed to pull all this stuff over from another thread?

1. I'm lazy.2. If someone wants the big picture, they can get the other parts there.

Quote

All you've done is show the proper place for the post I called and still call irrelevant.

Well, I guess we'll have to post it on that thread then, no?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is the refusal of the precursors of the GOA to acknowledge this that has led to the jurisdictional mess.

There's plenty of blame to spread around for the ecclesiological disorganization in the Orthodox Church, of which the situation in North America is just one effect of.

The OCA can also look at itself and see all that it's done to make sure unity doesn't happen, and maybe they can also explain why a diocese of theirs right now is looking at splitting off.

I agree, and personally, since St. Paul himself tells us that love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13), I think it's time for us to step up to the plate, in the love that we profess but often don't actually hold, and stop blaming and start changing! I think that's what the Chief Secretary was trying to do-- answer the allegations/comments with truth and love (he was direct, but not disrespectful) that were leveled by +JONAH and +PHILLIP and move forward, stating where he (not the Patriarchate, but he) stands on the situation. That's just my personal opinion, though, not meant to offend anyone.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 10:57:12 AM by GreekChef »

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

I agree, and personally, since St. Paul himself tells us that love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13), I think it's time for us to step up to the plate, in the love that we profess but often don't actually hold, and stop blaming and start changing!

Agreed.

Quote

I think that's what the Chief Secretary was trying to do-- answer the allegations/comments with truth and love (he was direct, but not disrespectful)

I suppose it depends on how one defines "disrespectful." Personally, I found it downright insulting, almost from beginning to end, without taking into account his statements about +Philip and +Jonah. Certainly, the oblivion about the United States displayed in the document demonstrates that valid or not, the EP has much homework to do before he lays claim to us.

American Orthodox unity is not going to come from foreign potentates.

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010. May his memory be eternal!

It is the refusal of the precursors of the GOA to acknowledge this that has led to the jurisdictional mess.

There's plenty of blame to spread around for the ecclesiological disorganization in the Orthodox Church, of which the situation in North America is just one effect of.

The OCA can also look at itself and see all that it's done to make sure unity doesn't happen, and maybe they can also explain why a diocese of theirs right now is looking at splitting off.

Are you refering to the Romanians?

The OCA's main part has been squandering oppurtunities, and mismanagement. The vision that Met. Jonah exposed, and the Chief Secretary criticized, is part of the solution (actually, the core of the solution) not the problem. More of the Phanariot vision is part (actually, the core) of the problem.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What's clear to me in all of this is unity is moving backwards. There would be unity tomorrow if people wanted it, but the fact is they don't. Who settled Alaska when, etc., etc., etc. Blah, Blah, Blah.

I suppose we can have unity tomorrow if we follow your all-too-simplistic suggestion to ignore and gloss over the differences that divide us. But how does this accomplish true unity? The issues that divide us will not go away by themselves. If we don't address them head on and actually seek to resolve them, they will likely explode and destroy any pseudo-unity we put together.

Since the Greek Orthodox Church is the oldest within the continental United States (Alaska was not a state), and since it is the largest jurisdiction, and since it is under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and since nations do not traditionally have their own national jurisdictions unless their people are Orthodox, the best solution for unity would be if all jurisdictions were to unite under the Greek Orthodox Church.

Sorry, Russian Jurisdiction is well established at this point.

The Russians in the United States can maintain their traditions while being under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America. Otherwise, the Greeks can be under the Russian Patriarch. I don't really care. We just need to end this division among jurisdictional lines. We also need to end this OCA autocephaly nonsense.

A poster after the Chief Secretary's own heart. What "autocephaly" nonsense is unspecified, just derived. The same making diaspora of the natives ("AK not a state": neither was FL or LA). The reason why we need to bring history in, to clue people in.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 12:58:29 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I suppose we can have unity tomorrow if we follow your all-too-simplistic suggestion to ignore and gloss over the differences that divide us. But how does this accomplish true unity? The issues that divide us will not go away by themselves. If we don't address them head on and actually seek to resolve them, they will likely explode and destroy any pseudo-unity we put together.

Peter, the reality is people don't want unity; and when they say they do, it usually just means they want it around their vision of things and on their terms. The problems of course consist of but are not limited to:

- The GOA scrapped its constitution and put their Metropolitans on the Holy Synod of the EP. Basically this is to make sure jurisdictional unity does not happen if not under the EP.- Groups like the Serbs and the ROCOR (and others, possibly soon to be the Romanians as well) definitely do see themselves as diaspora churches and would not be interested in joining with anybody else. Their vision is along national lines.- The OCA has run itself so poorly that nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. There's a reason why the AOA has never joined it.- The AOA is now it seems getting ready to have a major internal donnybrook which could lead to a schism and more hard feelings. It has certainly stepped back significantly from autonomy.

I'm sure I could keep listing reasons why unity is actually never going to happen. In my own diocese I've heard a priest say from the pulpit it is our duty to make sure we always carry on as a distinct entity and not get folded in to some other church. In the greater scheme of things, the Orthodox hierarchs worldwide don't seem to play and share well with others.

I suppose we can have unity tomorrow if we follow your all-too-simplistic suggestion to ignore and gloss over the differences that divide us. But how does this accomplish true unity? The issues that divide us will not go away by themselves. If we don't address them head on and actually seek to resolve them, they will likely explode and destroy any pseudo-unity we put together.

Peter, the reality is people don't want unity; and when they say they do, it usually just means they want it around their vision of things and on their terms. The problems of course consist of but are not limited to:

- The GOA scrapped its constitution and put their Metropolitans on the Holy Synod of the EP. Basically this is to make sure jurisdictional unity does not happen if not under the EP.- Groups like the Serbs and the ROCOR (and others, possibly soon to be the Romanians as well) definitely do see themselves as diaspora churches and would not be interested in joining with anybody else. Their vision is along national lines.- The OCA has run itself so poorly that nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. There's a reason why the AOA has never joined it.- The AOA is now it seems getting ready to have a major internal donnybrook which could lead to a schism and more hard feelings. It has certainly stepped back significantly from autonomy.

I'm sure I could keep listing reasons why unity is actually never going to happen. In my own diocese I've heard a priest say from the pulpit it is our duty to make sure we always carry on as a distinct entity and not get folded in to some other church. In the greater scheme of things, the Orthodox hierarchs worldwide don't seem to play and share well with others.

Correction: The GOA did NOT make these changes. The patriarch imposed them.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

The Russian Orthodox prelate spoke of one of the main points of conflict in the path toward unity between Orthodox and Catholics -- the figure of the Bishop of Rome.

Bishop Alfeev explained: "According to the document, 'communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles.'

"Therefore the Orthodox Churches by virtue of being not in communion with the Bishop of Rome 'lack something in their condition as particular churches.'

"We, the Orthodox, believe that, being not in communion with them, the Roman Catholic Church 'lacks something in its condition.'"

However, Bishop Alfeev expressed his hope that both Churches give priority to unity.

Now, I imagine most people will shriek "no, that's not true!", and Orthodoxy will continue in a state of perpetual internal schism - whether it's the Old Believer's, the Old Calendarists, the "True" Churches, the fight between the EP & MP or the spread of Orthodox denominations (because this is what they are) in North America, etc.

I will just repeat what I've said elsewhere. Unity in North America won't happen, because people don't want it to, irrespective of the above. The scary thing in this thread is the belief that basically all the overseas hierarchies are corrupt and untrustworthy, and that our best bet is relying on a body that has a recent proven track record of malfeasance. Maybe the long term vision will be like this for some:

I will just repeat what I've said elsewhere. Unity in North America won't happen, because people don't want it to, irrespective of the above.

In a way, I agree, but in another way, I disagree. I agree that unity in N.America won't happen as a result of the actions of the clergy or laity of N.America. But such a unity can (and will) happen from the top-down. Because the problems exist among the local Churches in N.America (and the IONA, and Australia, and New Zealand etc), these problems can only be solved by an authority which is greater than the local Churches- that is, an Ecumenical Synod.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I will just repeat what I've said elsewhere. Unity in North America won't happen, because people don't want it to, irrespective of the above.

In a way, I agree, but in another way, I disagree. I agree that unity in N.America won't happen as a result of the actions of the clergy or laity of N.America. But such a unity can (and will) happen from the top-down. Because the problems exist among the local Churches in N.America (and the IONA, and Australia, and New Zealand etc), these problems can only be solved by an authority which is greater than the local Churches- that is, an Ecumenical Synod.

Exactly ozgeorge, and that is what Fr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis was saying in my opinion when he said

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person.

The inability to achieve unity is quite apparent. Not only do some want to jettison primacy (which is intrinsic with synodality), but what they really want is to reduce the status of the bishops themselves and have everything ultimately be accountable to the laity.

Thank you AMM for posting the latest reflection by George C. Michalopulos (http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=127). Of course, I must disagree with your conclusion that "and American Orthodoxy will basically be just like any other non profit out there. Run like the associated federation of organizations." The vision of Mr. Michalopulos is that of a hierarchical church in North America. How we get there is the difficulty.

You and I are in complete opposition regarding the views of the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. Sorry, but I happen to think that the heresy is with the learned doctor for he espouses a papist view.

Finally, if the only way to achieve unity in the New World is by moving the "Ecumenical" Patriarchate to Washington or New York, I would have no problem with it provided the current Phanariots stayed behind to tend to the three Canon 28 dioceses as an eparchy. The bishops, metropolitans and Patriarch of North America must be North Americans--born and raised here, with no dual-loyalties.

The Russian Orthodox prelate spoke of one of the main points of conflict in the path toward unity between Orthodox and Catholics -- the figure of the Bishop of Rome.

Bishop Alfeev explained: "According to the document, 'communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles.'

"Therefore the Orthodox Churches by virtue of being not in communion with the Bishop of Rome 'lack something in their condition as particular churches.'

"We, the Orthodox, believe that, being not in communion with them, the Roman Catholic Church 'lacks something in its condition.'"

However, Bishop Alfeev expressed his hope that both Churches give priority to unity.